I took the plunge...

[Smokey D]

I took the plunge...
This could be a cluster****, but whatever.

Natural rights, how do you feel about them?

It could be good, but people don't like natural rights round here.

[The Stig]

What do we mean by natural rights?

[Iskandar]

It could be good, but people don't like natural rights round here.Are you a natural-rights guy?
What do we mean by natural rights?Rights which exist prior to government.

[The Stig]

Oh That is an easy answer for me.

[Iskandar]

Oh That is an easy answer for me.Why?

[The Stig]

Life
Liberty
Property

As long as you do not infringe on others' rights as such, you should have freedom on the above three to the fullest extent.

[Iskandar]

Life
Liberty
Property

As long as you do not infringe on others' rights as such, you should have freedom on the above three to the fullest extent.You're really into John Locke aren't you.

[The Stig]

I haven't read a lot of his stuff, but I want to do that.

I'd also like to check out some Adam Smith.

Honestly, though, I am not really well-versed on political philosophy.

[Iskandar]

I haven't read a lot of his stuff, but I want to do that.

I'd also like to check out some Adam Smith.

Honestly, though, I am not really well-versed on political philosophy.Well, the phrase "life, liberty and property" originated with him, as far as I can tell.

Adam Smith is the founder of classical economics, so you just might want to check that out.

[Smokey D]

You're really into John Locke aren't you.

Locke didn't believe in property to the exclusion of all else, though.

[guitrguy]

replace property with happiness

[Iskandar]

Locke didn't believe in property to the exclusion of all else, though.Although he was the first to conceive of it as a natural right, correct? Your labor makes it your right.

[Smokey D]

Not really a natural right, but yeah.

[Iskandar]

replace property with happinessLol, ya.

I don't believe in natural rights though.

According to Steve, that makes me a fascist or something.

[The Stig]

Why not?

[guitrguy]

I don't believe in them either. Those rights are meaningless with out enforcement and conception. Nor do they exist in the natural state of man.

[Iskandar]

Why not?Rights only make sense when they're recognized by a government.

In my view, government doesn't merely protect rights, it establishes them as well. Without a constitution, you have no rights.

I don't believe in them either. Those rights are meaningless with out enforcement and conception. Nor do they exist in the natural state of man.Sup Brian.

[guitrguy]

Rights only make sense when they're recognized by a government.

In my view, government doesn't merely protect rights, it establishes them as well. Without a constitution, you have no rights.

Sup Brian.

sup alex

[gregulus]

Are you a natural-rights guy?
Rights which exist prior to government.

No, but I am a Natural Light guy....

I couldn't resist :(

I don't really like Natty Light.

[The Stig]

But in that case and by that argument, establishing a government acknowledges that there are some sort of natural rights that need protection.

[Mr. Ron]

sup guys


wait, do people have the right to live? Even without government?

[Iskandar]

sup alexnm nm just enjoying the rights bestowed upon me by the canadian charter of rights and freedoms
But in that case and by that argument, establishing a government acknowledges that there are some sort of natural rights that need protection.Not necessarily. People establish governments to bring about order, fundamentally. And a good government grants rights, which are, properly understood, limitations on the power that government has.

[Mr. Ron]

nm nm just enjoying the rights bestowed upon me by the canadian charter of rights and freedoms

those sound pretty sweet may I have some, alex?

[Smokey D]

But in that case and by that argument, establishing a government acknowledges that there are some sort of natural rights that need protection.

Yeah, I never understood how you (by which I mean commies like Alex) could hold that people (or the working class) were owed anything if they don't believe in natural rights.

I don't believe in them either. Those rights are meaningless with out enforcement and conception. Nor do they exist in the natural state of man.

More importantly, what the hell is the natural state of man?

[Iskandar]

those sound pretty sweet may I have some, alex?Only if you come to Canada.
Yeah, I never understood how you (by which I mean commies like Alex) could hold that people (or the working class) were owed anything if they don't believe in natural rights.Communism died with The Dropper.
More importantly, what the hell is the natural state of man?Anarchy, meaning a lack of government.

[Mr. Ron]

I do not know enough about the concepts to really comment, I'll just watch for now.

[guitrguy]

More importantly, what the hell is the natural state of man?

I was mostly making a joke/allusion, but basically before/without civilization

[Iskandar]

I was mostly making a joke/allusion, but basically before/without civilizationAnarchy.

[Mr. Ron]

do people have the right to live? Even without government?

[Smokey D]

Anarchy, meaning a lack of government.

Well, that's a bit iffy.

[The Stig]

Yes. Which is why I don't see how the concept of natural rights can be ignored.

[gregulus]

Assuming the non-existence of God, exactly where those rights would come from seems a mystery. This idea gets hung up, though, when I try to apply that argument to natural laws (which most certainly do exist). Of course, it is important to distinguish that the 4 major forces have been in existence since a fraction of a second after the big bang occurred. With natural rights, though, the properties don't seem as definite. Also, the origin of the 4 major forces has absolutely nothing in common with any sense of right and wrong. They just are.

I'm not saying one way or another currently, I'm just thinking as I type.

[Iskandar]

do people have the right to live? Even without government?I would say no.

That right, along with all others, has to be granted by a government.
This idea gets hung up, though, when I try to apply that argument to natural laws (which most certainly do exist).Natural laws are completely different. Politics isn't nearly as absolute as natural science.

[Smokey D]

Which essentially means the government owes us nothing and can do what it likes to us, including revoking what rights it has given us.

[The Stig]

Could it be argued that government is a natural occurance that evolved based on the concept of protecting our natural rights?

[Iskandar]

Which essentially means the government owes us nothing and can do what it likes to us, including revoking what rights it has given us.No it can't. Only an absolute government can do that, and that's not what liberal democracy is.

C'mon, you know better than that.
Could it be argued that government is a natural occurance that evolved based on the concept of protecting our natural rights?
I believe it evolved for different, more utilitarian reasons.

[Smokey D]

That is the standard natural rights argument.

But it's flawed because it fails to account for when that doesn't happen.

No it can't. Only an absolute government can do that, and that's not what liberal democracy is.

C'mon, you know better than that.

But I have no right to question what my government does except for what my government has given me.

[gregulus]

Yes. Which is why I don't see how the concept of natural rights can be ignored.
But in an entirely natural state, survival would ultimately become more important than simple right and wrong. Of course, it would be necessary to form some sort of union with other people to depend on each other. Killing off other members of this union for arbitrary reasons would be counter productive. Natural rights don't have to come into the equation for such an idea to exist.

[Smokey D]

Not killing people off for arbitrary reasons and establishing a system of rights are pretty different, since we hold that rights exist even when extinguishing those rights would have a utilitarian purpose (ie, not be arbitrary).

[Iskandar]

But I have no right to question what my government does except for what my government has given me.Luckily you have the right to question it. Many others don't.

[The Stig]

But right and wrong evolve out of the idea of survival. I.e. in order to survive, I sometimes need to rely on other people...It eventually becomes considered right to stick to and make sure members of your species are protected.

[Smokey D]

If right and wrong are as relative as 'what is needed for survival', then there aren't natural rights.

[gregulus]

Which essentially means the government owes us nothing and can do what it likes to us, including revoking what rights it has given us.
Not according to any sort of social contract.

[guitrguy]

For it to be natural you would have to show it existing on its own with out gov't. The very reason we have gov't is to enforce our conception justice.

[Iskandar]

I don't see how rights can make any sense in a state of anarchy.

[The Stig]

For it to be natural you would have to show it existing on its own with out gov't. The very reason we have gov't is to enforce our conception justice.

But if that's the case, there would be no evolution of government by the argument that government exists to protect rights.

[Smokey D]

Not according to any sort of social contract.

Except Hobbes'.

And social contracts are pretty bogus thought experiments.

I don't see how rights can make any sense in a state of anarchy.

They don't. But I don't see how you can demand anything of your government if you think it is the government that gets to decide what rights are.

[guitrguy]

I don't see how rights can make any sense in a state of anarchy.
Thats because they don't. If they are natural, then why can the so easily be abridged? Why is that they only can be counted on if the are enforced by a set man made laws?

[guitrguy]

But if that's the case, there would be no evolution of government by the argument that government exists to protect rights.
Not necessarily, man had to evolve to obtain the ideas of a working society. Once they conceived those ideas of rights, they must create an entity to enforce and uphold those rights.

Man evolves. Ideas are reflection of man. Therefore ideas such as rights and government are evolve.

[gregulus]

Not killing people off for arbitrary reasons and establishing a system of rights are pretty different, since we hold that rights exist even when extinguishing those rights would have a utilitarian purpose (ie, not be arbitrary).
Could it be possible that the idea of rights evolved from what was productive and counter productive initially. Of course, people (theoretically), want as much freedom as possible but willingly delegate some of this freedom to the established government for a sense of order? As society progressed, this idea evolved into what we now consider "unalienable rights."

And social contracts are pretty bogus thought experiment
How so?

[Iskandar]

I didn't sign no stinking social contract.

[Smokey D]

Could it be possible that the idea of rights evolved from what was productive and counter productive initially. Of course, people (theoretically), want as much freedom as possible but willingly delegate some of this freedom to the established government for a sense of order? As society progressed, this idea evolved into what we now consider "unalienable rights."

Well, perhaps but this is problematised by the facts a) initial forms of government respected very few of the rights we now consider inalienable and b) such a system shows that those rights are social, not natural.

How so?

When did you sign up?

[Mr. Ron]

Except Hobbes'.

And social contracts are pretty bogus thought experiments.



They don't. But I don't see how you can demand anything of your government if you think it is the government that gets to decide what rights are.

why?

[Smokey D]

Because no one ever actually got together and signed a social contract. So instead we have one or two thinkers telling us what the social contract is, when in fact all we're getting is their opinion.

[guitrguy]

why?


When did you sign up?

:).

[gregulus]

Well, perhaps but this is problematised by the facts a) initial forms of government respected very few of the rights we now consider inalienable and
Right. They were governed almost primarily by the "law of force." This furthers neither argument, though. If they were "natural," then shouldn't they have been recognized sooner. It does debunk my previous post, though.
b) such a system shows that those rights are social, not natural.
Isn't that what we're trying to determine, linking what are considered "natural" rights to some sort of social origin...


When did you sign up?
Fair enough.

[Mr. Ron]

Because no one ever actually got together and signed a social contract.

well, i think the word "contract" is simply there for semantics. Idk.

[Smokey D]

Social contract theory presumes acquiescence and compliance, and then arrests me if I challenge that presumption (ie, if I say I'm not part of the social contract). Thus, no one has agreed to the contract, but we all have to behave like we have. Hence, it's bogus.

Right. They were governed almost primarily by the "law of force." This furthers neither argument, though. If they were "natural," then shouldn't they have been recognized sooner. It does debunk my previous post, though.

Well, I suppose there's nothing to say that natural rights would be recognised immediately. But I think the fact that they evolve according to social expectations indicates that they are in fact social rights.

Isn't that what we're trying to determine, linking what are considered "natural" rights to some sort of social origin...

If rights are natural, then they exist independently of society and any social model.

[Mr. Ron]

ah, ok. That makes sense.

[Iskandar]

If rights are natural, then they exist independently of society and any social model.That's bogus. Rights mean nothing without people to apply them to.

[Smokey D]

I agree.

But if rights are social, then whatever society deems to be right (and wrong) goes, and we can't complain when another society does something we find abhorrent.

[Iskandar]

I agree.

But if rights are social, then whatever society deems to be right (and wrong) goes, and we can't complain when another society does something we find abhorrent.You're sounding like Steve.

The best we can do is stick to our convictions about what is right.

[gregulus]

Well, I suppose there's nothing to say that natural rights would be recognised immediately. But I think the fact that they evolve according to social expectations indicates that they are in fact social rights.
I think your last point is observable by noting how slowly the application of "natural rights" actually took hold following the Magna Carta. Namely who they applied to. This could be a different discussion though, because of the presumed reasons behind such discriminatory ideas.

If rights are natural, then they exist independently of society and any social model.
But tying them to some sort of social origin would greatly weaken the "natural" case.

[Smokey D]

You're sounding like Steve.

What? I'm taking the logic to its conclusion.

The best we can do is stick to our convictions about what is right.

Yeah, maybe, but you also lose your right to judge the morality of other societies.


But tying them to some sort of social origin would greatly weaken the "natural" case.

Which is why natural rights are bogus.

[gregulus]

Just for my own clarification, in your definition of a social contract, you said it presumed compliance. Wouldn't there be an initial group of people to grant compliance? It's just the generations that followed who were presumed to comply?

[Smokey D]

Social contract theories are explain thought experiments, not historical events.

[guitrguy]

Well the social contract is an evolution of Gov't. English gov't is a good example of how it evolved over time. The concept is there, but there is no real contract.

[gregulus]

I am also brought to the question, why did it take so long for such "rights" to appear? It seems like the simplest answer is that with the earliest forms of government, those who were subordinated didn't have a means to fight back. Those in power rarely give up power when strength is in their hands. But I don't know how accurate this assumption is.

[Smokey D]

Very few people agreed to live according to the English social contract, but the system it allegedly underpins continues to presume and require the compliance of some 50 million people.

[guitrguy]

Religion was gov't for the most part back then, I don't think there was much of problem in that regard.

Very few people agreed to live according to the English social contract, but the system it allegedly underpins continues to presume and require the compliance of some 50 million people.I agree, but I do see validity in the idea of gov't answering to society.

[Smokey D]

The role of religion in government outside Italy is grossly overstated.

[guitrguy]

The role of religion in government outside Italy is grossly overstated.

I was talking about riverine civilizations' gov'ts, actually. I should have specified.

[gregulus]

Very few people agreed to live according to the English social contract, but the system it allegedly underpins continues to presume and require the compliance of some 50 million people.

Was that in response to my question?

[Smokey D]

No, guitarguy's point on English government.


I agree, but I do see validity in the idea of gov't answering to society.

Only because you've been raised with that norm.

Previous norms included the divine right of kings.

[guitrguy]

Only because you've been raised with that norm.

Previous norms included the divine right of kings.

which supports the evolution aspect of it.

From what I remember English kings really weren't there through divine right. The parliamentary system is rooted back to tribal days.

[Smokey D]

Parliament goes back to the Magna Carta at the earliest. Trying to establish something prior to that is wishful thinking.

Divine right of kings did enter English political philosophy, but it was rejected by the success of Parliament in the Civil War. Even after that, royal prerogative remained very important to English politics.

[guitrguy]

idk, the wintegamon(sp?) exhibited behavior similar to that of parliament. I know the king still remained important, but the parliament provided bounds to the executive branch not seen during that era.

But an Englishman would know better than an American who learned about it in a World Civ. class.

[Smokey D]

Broadly similar, but the Magna Carta was the foundational document in that it set out the rules of the relationship between king and nobility. The Witenagemot was far less established and more tenuous. Also, the Witenagemot was destroyed by the Norman invasion and the whole popular representation thing was effectively rebooted by the Magna Carta.

[guitrguy]

oh ok, thanks for the clarification.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Parliament goes back to the Magna Carta at the earliest. Trying to establish something prior to that is wishful thinking.From what I gather, the confusion probably originates with the 19th C Whiggist histories, which viewed history as a progress towards constitutional monarchy and were thus highly anachronistic.

The way I see it, the concept of 'rights' is not something objective beyond society but is produced as a result of an authority imposing constraints and responsibilities; what remains the individual has license to and are 'rights'. Different societies have different 'rights' as authorities impose differing constraints and responsibilities upon those they subject.

[PerpetualBurn]

I agree.

But if rights are social, then whatever society deems to be right (and wrong) goes, and we can't complain when another society does something we find abhorrent.

I've already pointed this out to Steve too many times to count, but this is really quite a poor argument. It's an appeal to the consquences of rights not being natural, and is a pretty clear cut fallacy.

The consequences of rights being social rather than natural are irrelevant to the truth of the situation.

Rights are an abstract concept. I don't see how they can be argued to exist in any way other than in the mind of man.

[jaredong]

i think that

the problem with natural right is that if theres no written document saying "these are your rights" then when it comes down to an arguement and someone asks you "prove it, show me your rights" you cant really point to any document stating "these are your rights". They are not really entrenched or anything in the system.

however, if you do write em all down like in the constitution, people could argue that it is human arrogance to think that "we" decide our rights. Its arrogance to think that we can just one day "decide" what our rights are. No matter what some law says, you will always have your natural rights.

For example, what if one day we're turned into a facist dictatorship which re-writes our laws. there are no rights for women/minorities, would it be ok to say "they have no rights because its not written in the constituion"? Or to say "they should have rights because everyone has certain human rights".

[ringworm]

just live by the same example of the montery pop festival of '67 and you wont need 10 page threads discussing what every person has the right to do :)

[McP3000]

People don't have natural rights, but people should is the bottom line basically.

[gregulus]

People don't have natural rights, but people should is the bottom line basically.
How can they have them if they don't exist?

[McP3000]

How can they have them if they don't exist?
I worded that so badly :rolleyes:

No one has natural rights, but people should have what we often refer to as natural rights.

[-1up!-]

Yeah, maybe, but you also lose your right to judge the morality of other societies.


I think anyone denying the existence of naural rights (and objective morality, as they are somewhat linked) should come to that conclusion, given they are coherent in thought. Needless to say it is a conclusion I share and agree with.

[J Rad]

Natural rights do not exist. Rights are not recognized and respected unless established by an existing government.

[Mr. Ron]

I thought you believed in god?

[guitrguy]

Believing in god doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in natural rights.

[J Rad]

I thought you believed in god?

That doesn't mean I believe in natural rights. Rights have to be actively enforced for them to be accepted rights. A right can't be natural if everyone does not recognize and obey it without command.

[spitfirejunky]

What? I'm taking the logic to its conclusion.

Bam.

[pedro durruti]

Although it may just be semantics, everyone has a right to their body and thus if such a right is being violated by another they have an additional right of resistance by that simple fact.

[guitrguy]

Although it may just be semantics, everyone has a right to their body and thus if such a right is being violated by another they have an additional right of resistance by that simple fact.

We have a developed concept of a right to our body.

[Toaster]

are we talking about injuns here? seriously.

[guitrguy]

are we talking about injuns here? seriously.

Whether or not Life, Liberty, and Property are rights that exist before gov't.

[Smokey D]

I've already pointed this out to Steve too many times to count, but this is really quite a poor argument. It's an appeal to the consquences of rights not being natural, and is a pretty clear cut fallacy.

The consequences of rights being social rather than natural are irrelevant to the truth of the situation.

Hey man, I wasn't attempting to use that as an argument to prove natural rights exist. I was just pointing out that if rights do in fact not exist, your moral framework becomes a lot more tenuous. This is the corollary of the argument, not a part of it.


I think anyone denying the existence of naural rights (and objective morality, as they are somewhat linked) should come to that conclusion, given they are coherent in thought. Needless to say it is a conclusion I share and agree with.

More problematic is to what extent a society can judge itself.

Although it may just be semantics, everyone has a right to their body and thus if such a right is being violated by another they have an additional right of resistance by that simple fact.

Says who?

[McP3000]

More problematic is to what extent a society can judge itself.
If we knew this there would be so fewer problems in the world

[pedro durruti]

Says who?
If someone tries to physically subdue me, I have the ability to, as far as my strength will allow me, resist, and only my complete subordination will take that right away, if you can call it that.

[-1up!-]

If someone tries to physically subdue me, I have the ability to, as far as my strength will allow me, resist, and only my complete subordination will take that right away, if you can call it that.

But you've only stated that you have the ability to defend yourself.

[guitrguy]

If someone tries to physically subdue me, I have the ability to, as far as my strength will allow me, resist, and only my complete subordination will take that right away, if you can call it that.

So if I have the ability to do something, I also have the right to do it?

[Against Miik!]

So if I have the ability to do something, I also have the right to do it?

Well thats just might makes right, which is something democracy preaches against but practices many times.

I think the most important thing people need to understand, in regards to a certain right specifically, freedom of speech, is that you have to the right to speak, but not the right to be listened to. Nobody really seems to get that.

[guitrguy]

Well thats just might makes right, which is something democracy preaches against but practices many times.

I think the most important thing people need to understand, in regards to a certain right specifically, freedom of speech, is that you have to the right to speak, but not the right to be listened to. Nobody really seems to get that.

I was questioning his logic...

[Against Miik!]

oic i see. I just got here. Well, your statement, and thus his logic, is illogical, unless you believe in might makes right.

[Valhall]

But might doesn't make right :confused:

I'm lost....and I don't want to get in this one...looks to be a bit over my head...

[Against Miik!]

But might doesn't make right :confused:

I'm lost....and I don't want to get in this one...looks to be a bit over my head...

Well it can, under a certain interpretation of what righteousness is. Is there really a cut and dry definition of right in wrong? Or is right merely what can and cannot be dictated? I dunno, its something that is always up for debate.

[guitrguy]

oic i see. I just got here. Well, your statement, and thus his logic, is illogical, unless you believe in might makes right.

I don't, but might makes right is sustained only by severely oppressing others.

But might doesn't make right :confused:

I'm lost....and I don't want to get in this one...looks to be a bit over my head...
Its a form of gov't legitimacy. Its similar to Divine Right only the ruling power came into power through force.

[-1up!-]

Well it can, under a certain interpretation of what righteousness is. Is there really a cut and dry definition of right in wrong? Or is right merely what can and cannot be dictated? I dunno, its something that is always up for debate.

Well, the debate is whether natural rights exist or not. If we say, for example, that might makes right, then it is a a posteriori conception of rights, based on contingent factors. A right based on might is not found in nature, it is constructed out of inequalities of condition.

If anyone is to pretend the existence of natural rights, then the burden of proof is to show how such rights exist a priori, before taking into account any kind of social, moral or legal context. If rights are to be found in nature, then in theory they are universal and apply to all humans equally.

[gregulus]

Well, the debate is whether natural rights exist or not. If we say, for example, that might makes right, then it is a a posteriori conception of rights, based on contingent factors. A right based on might is not found in nature, it is constructed out of inequalities of condition.

If anyone is to pretend the existence of natural rights, then the burden of proof is to show how such rights exist a priori, before taking into account any kind of social, moral or legal context. If rights are to be found in nature, then in theory they are universal and apply to all humans equally.

Proving things a priori is difficult and, arguably, impossible (see: David Hume). Such statement like "natural rights exist" require some sort of proof to have any validity. Of course, once you get into the social aspects of right and wrong, the argument that natural rights exist can be even more difficult to prove.

[PerpetualBurn]

Hey man, I wasn't attempting to use that as an argument to prove natural rights exist. I was just pointing out that if rights do in fact not exist, your moral framework becomes a lot more tenuous. This is the corollary of the argument, not a part of it.

Fair cop.

[-1up!-]

Proving things a priori is difficult and, arguably, impossible (see: David Hume). Such statement like "natural rights exist" require some sort of proof to have any validity. Of course, once you get into the social aspects of right and wrong, the argument that natural rights exist can be even more difficult to prove.

Exactly; proving natural rights a priori are pretty much impossible, unless someone develops a very compelling argument about how those rights can somehow emerge from reason (see Kant....)

If we, then, say that experience is necessary for the demonstration of natural rights, we have to obtain... empirical evidence about the existence of these rights.

I have no idea how anyone could empirically prove rights.

Rights are given by the government.

That means rights are contingent rather than necessary; their existence depends on the government's, or any situation where one can be subjected to the power of another. Rights cannot exist by themselves; they emerge out of inequalities of condition.

Thus natural rights must be empirically proven, and until the time that feat is accomplished, we can safely conclude that natural rights do not exist.

[gregulus]

Exactly; proving natural rights a priori are pretty much impossible, unless someone develops a very compelling argument about how those rights can somehow emerge from reason (see Kant....)

If we, then, say that experience is necessary for the demonstration of natural rights, we have to obtain... empirical evidence about the existence of these rights.

I have no idea how anyone could empirically prove rights.

Rights are given by the government.

That means rights are contingent rather than necessary; their existence depends on the government's, or any situation where one can be subjected to the power of another. Rights cannot exist by themselves; they emerge out of inequalities of condition.

Thus natural rights must be empirically proven, and until the time that feat is accomplished, we can safely conclude that natural rights do not exist.
Kant's categorical imperative is fairly interesting. I used to have major qualms with it, but I can now at least see somewhat see his point. I still can't say I agree with it though.

I've been thinking about morality a lot lately.

[guitrguy]

His categorical imperatives are way to absolute for my liking.

But arguing for natural rights is an argument from ignorance.

[gregulus]

His categorical imperatives are way to absolute for my liking.

But arguing for natural rights is an argument from ignorance.
I like the idea behind them, though. I dunno, I tend to put too much emphasis behind reason. I have to much hope for mankind.

There are certain situations, though, where I can only see how exceptions to the categorical imperative would be rational, thus making it a hypothetical imperative, which Kant hated.

[sweboy]

I never really understood what natural rights is, because all explainations I've seen have just been retarded. Are there people (non-religious people) who actually think that the universe provides moral rules for humans, or what?

[guitrguy]

I have yet to meat an atheist who believes that, but a non-religious may still believe in a god who is the source and arbiter of morality.

Gregulus: I like the idea he has behind it too. I'm all for Hypothetical imperatives. I view morality as an optional code of conduct that helps a person operate in a given society.

[Smokey D]

His categorical imperatives are way to absolute for my liking.

But arguing for natural rights is an argument from ignorance.

Kant tried to establish rights emerging from reason, but all he ended up doing was telling people why he (and consequently, his society) was right.

[guitrguy]

I'm quite interested in reading that argument. Do you know where I could find it?

[gregulus]

I'm quite interested in reading that argument. Do you know where I could find it?

Just google categorical imperative. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a ton of **** on it.

[Smokey D]

The Metaphysics of Morals sounds promising. I should point out I haven't read much of Kant himself (only Perpetual Peace and What is Enlightenment), only summaries of his work.

[guitrguy]

His writing style is to hard for me to read, so I have to rely on summaries and class.

So he used categorical imperatives to argue for rights coming from reason?

[-1up!-]

His writing style is to hard for me to read, so I have to rely on summaries and class.

So he used categorical imperatives to argue for rights coming from reason?

Kant argued that the categorical imperative was the main factor in judging of the morality of an act. A moral act, according to Kant, is one which is accomplished following the sense of duty; and that duty (which he says emerges from reason) is to follow the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative is more or less a reshaping of the golden rule: act as if the principle of your actions was to become a universal law; never use others as means, always as ends in themselves. Kant said the categorical imperative, in this manner, was to be used as a "test" to judge moral behavior.

Example: say you slept with your girlfriend last night, knowing your parents are against it, and knowing that if they knew you slept with her, they would not admit her into the house anymore. Say your mom asks you what you did last night; let's say you lie, because you lose more by telling the truth than lying.

In this example, Kant would condemn you. He is a strong deontologist (judge the morality of an act in itself), as opposed to a consequentialist (judge the act according to its intentions and results). He would say: imagine that the principle of your act (to lie when telling the truth presents a greater loss) becomes a universal law. It won't be long before everyone lies for all sorts of things!

But lying only works in a context where most people trust each other to tell the truth. If the principle of your act becomes a universal law, then everybody lies, and no one can trust each other anymore. In this context, lying loses its use, because it is expected that you will lie in everyday situations. Your principle, as a universal law, gives rise to a world which "makes no sense", in which no rational being would like to live. Thus, lying is immoral, regardless of any reason for which you did it; your principle has failed the test of the categorical imperative.

IMO Kant is not a reference in moral philosophy. Stating that the source of moral behavior is reason, and presenting a universal, objective system of morality from it, makes me steer away from this aspect of his philosophy.