Humility: Good or Bad?

[rbjmartin]

Every man must choose his own path.  There is an important difference between not violating the rights of others and choosing a proper path in life.  If a man violates the rights of others, he must be stopped.  If he merely makes poor decisions with regard to his own life, it may be sad, but it is his life and no one may use force to prevent him from doing stupid things.

You are moralizing and placing limits on others. What gives you this right? You have no authority. You don't have the authority of truth or reality, because you haven't proven the objective existence of rights or morality.

Say I am a hedonist. I take pleasure in your pain. I see no rational reason for me to prohibit myself from seeking this pleasure, because I see no proof of any objective morality existing.

Say I regard humanity as just another species. Materially, our consciousness is just an assortment of chemical reactions. So I see little reason to assume we are somehow set apart from the animals. I will feed my appetites at all costs, like an animal. There are no rights or morality in the animal kingdom. Why should I assume we are any different?

[Probius]

Every man must choose his own path.  There is an important difference between not violating the rights of others and choosing a proper path in life.  If a man violates the rights of others, he must be stopped.  If he merely makes poor decisions with regard to his own life, it may be sad, but it is his life and no one may use force to prevent him from doing stupid things.

You are moralizing and placing limits on others. What gives you this right? You have no authority. You don't have the authority of truth or reality, because you haven't proven the objective existence of rights or morality.

Say I am a hedonist. I take pleasure in your pain. I see no rational reason for me to prohibit myself from seeking this pleasure, because I see no proof of any objective morality existing.

Say I regard humanity as just another species. Materially, our consciousness is just an assortment of chemical reactions. So I see little reason to assume we are somehow set apart from the animals. I will feed my appetites at all costs, like an animal. There are no rights or morality in the animal kingdom. Why should I assume we are any different?

You are a broken record and are very tiring.  You seem to recognize no difference between obtaining what you want by producing it, and by taking it by force.  I have explained individual rights to you, and I have given you a basis for these rights.  You reject this, as you cannot accept anything but God.  I suppose your whole world revolves around God.  I suppose God is your explanation for everything.

I place no limits on other men, save that they not violate the rights of others.  This in no way limits a man's rights, as a man never has the right to violate another's rights.  Rights do not come from any man, they instead come from the basic facts of reality.

Ayn Rand said, "No one can think or perceive for another man.  If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self evident, he has abdicated reason, and cannot be dealt with any further."  Until you have something new to add, I will not waste any more time with you.

[rbjmartin]

You are a broken record and are very tiring.  You seem to recognize no difference between obtaining what you want by producing it, and by taking it by force.  I have explained individual rights to you, and I have given you a basis for these rights.  You reject this, as you cannot accept anything but God.  I suppose your whole world revolves around God.  I suppose God is your explanation for everything.

I place no limits on other men, save that they not violate the rights of others.  This in no way limits a man's rights, as a man never has the right to violate another's rights.  Rights do not come from any man, they instead come from the basic facts of reality.

Ayn Rand said, "No one can think or perceive for another man.  If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self evident, he has abdicated reason, and cannot be dealt with any further."  Until you have something new to add, I will not waste any more time with you.

Look, you're the one who has adopted a hypocritical and self-contradicting system of belief. You ask people to acknowledge some magical fairy tale theory of rights and morality, which are immaterial concepts that don't objectively exist outside of your brain, while embracing a dogmatic materialism. You are a materialist who is attached to immaterial fantasies. It's quite ludicrous.

You have no logical basis for your theory of rights. Your argument goes, "Rights exist because...they just do." That is the essence of your argument. You beg the question and avoid the real work of reasoning it out by saying, "It's self-evident." It's not.

Go ask the smartest and most sincere atheist you know if "man has a right to live" is a self-evident proposition. It is a value statement based on your own subjective perspective, and you need to come to terms with that and stop pretending to be a sincere thinker.

[ResRev]

Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

[Probius]

Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.

And from what authority do you claim this to be true.

[ResRev]

Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.

Okay, so mostly what the Founders proposed. I tend to agree, the libertarian in me hasn't quite been beaten out of me yet . What about people who replace property with something like healthcare or replace pursuit of healthcare or pursuit of water or shelter with just say, shelter. How do you prove that your list is self evident vis a vis their list?

[Probius]

Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.

Okay, so mostly what the Founders proposed. I tend to agree, the libertarian in me hasn't quite been beaten out of me yet . What about people who replace property with something like healthcare or replace pursuit of healthcare or pursuit of water or shelter with just say, shelter. How do you prove that your list is self evident vis a vis their list?

To have a right to healthcare is to have a claim upon the production of another's hands or mind, and this claim is false.  It makes no sense to say that another man owes me anything.  If I want healthcare, I must be willing to exchange value for value, I must pay for any healthcare I want.  This works with any good or service.

[ResRev]

I just think of it as positive rights vs negative rights. The simpler, the better, IMO. As in, you have the "right" to be left alone to pursue. Left alone, left alone. I used to argue these "rights" too, and then I realized they don't really mean a hill of beans because (1) I made them up because (2) I liked them and (3) they spoke to my intellect (still do). There's a lot to back them up. They fit my values and my intellect. Therefore they must be true. But... Other people just propose different values and say their intellect made them decide you owe them "healthcare". They'll also use those values and intellect to decide what "healthcare" means. It's only "self-evident" to some of us. Other things are evident to me, but not to you. Where does it end? It's a rabbit hole. It makes my head hurt, to be honest.

[Probius]

I just think of it as positive rights vs negative rights. The simpler, the better, IMO. As in, you have the "right" to be left alone to pursue. Left alone, left alone. I used to argue these "rights" too, and then I realized they don't really mean a hill of beans because (1) I made them up because (2) I liked them and (3) they spoke to my intellect (still do). There's a lot to back them up. They fit my values and my intellect. Therefore they must be true. But... Other people just propose different values and say their intellect made them decide you owe them "healthcare". They'll also use those values and intellect to decide what "healthcare" means. It's only "self-evident" to some of us. Other things are evident to me, but not to you. Where does it end? It's a rabbit hole. It makes my head hurt, to be honest.

Yes, positive vs negative rights is a good way of looking at it.  The US constitution deals with negative rights, what the government cannot do to us.  This is meant to protect us from the government.  Listing all positive rights, what we can do, would be problematic as it would entail an incredibly long list which would still leave some rights out.  It would also wrongly imply that the government gives us rights.

It would be an error to say that because not everyone agrees, there can be no truth, or that we cannot know truth.  If someone makes a claim to a good or service without paying for it, we can show that he is wrong by use of reason.  The solution is not to give up.  Will you not right for your rights?

[Kaesekopf]

CF:  if man had a right to live, wouldn't he then be the agent by which is he created?  (By which I mean, wouldn't he alone decide when he comes into being?)

And associated with that, why does man not have power over death?  If he has a right to live, he alone should decide when his time is over on this earth? 

[Kaesekopf]

What confers your rights onto a man?  Must he be able bodied?  Etc

If I have a right to life but am stricken I'll with a curable disease, how do I enact my right to life and get health care if I can't afford it? 

What use is an unexercisable right?

Also if my rights are violated who would I appeal to?

[Non Nobis]

I think that it is evident (not self-evident) that men have a right to live.  It is part of the natural law. We are not to take the most precious thing we know naturally away from others (note we have here not just a right but a duty).  I think atheists can know this; can know "rights";can accept the part of the natural law and "rights" that suit their taste; can hear their conscience which is "just a fact".  They just don't want to reason about where these real things come from. They bizarrely think they just came out of thin air. They are not (at least CF) entirely a materialist; "rights" and "ideas" and even "truth" aren't material.  But they can't explain these immaterial things; they just "are". And they (again bizarrely) have lost touch with the obvious sense that something/someone is TELLING them what to DO (respect rights). 

[ResRev]

I think that it is evident (not self-evident) that men have a right to live.  It is part of the natural law. We are not to take the most precious thing we know naturally away from others (note we have here not just a right but a duty).  I think atheists can know this; can know "rights";can accept the part of the natural law and "rights" that suit their taste; can hear their conscience which is "just a fact".  They just don't want to reason about where these real things come from. They bizarrely think they just came out of thin air. They are not (at least CF) entirely a materialist; "rights" and "ideas" and even "truth" aren't material.  But they can't explain these immaterial things; they just "are". And they (again bizarrely) have lost touch with the obvious sense that something/someone is TELLING them what to DO (respect rights).

Well put.

[Probius]

What confers your rights onto a man?  Must he be able bodied?  Etc

If I have a right to life but am stricken I'll with a curable disease, how do I enact my right to life and get health care if I can't afford it? 

What use is an unexercisable right?

Also if my rights are violated who would I appeal to?

I said nothing of a right to life, I am speaking of a right to live.  I have explained this above.  I know the two sound very similar, and that I might be splitting hairs, but I assure you that the difference is very important.  In saying that a man has a right to live, I am saying a man has the right to pursue life, but it is up to him as to whether he obtains life or not.

All men have the ability to pursue life, to live.  There is no such thing as an un-exercisable right.

If you need healthcare, you must pay for it.  In order to obtain value from another, you must provide value to the other.  You must exchange value for value.  Doctors, nurses, and healthcare administrators are providing value, they cannot be expected to work for free.  They deserve to be rewarded for their effort and time.  You have no right to steal from others in order to obtain your healthcare.  If John steals from Bill, John has violated Bill's rights regardless of what John plans on doing with the money after stealing it.