Re: The Balance Sheet as Morality

Wait as long as you wish, I'll be at the ORIGINAL goalpost.

You already forfeited that position when you disagreed in absolute terms with my definition of religion. Try again.

Nor do I feel a need to address all religious scholars, since no doubt you'd cite some ReligiousScholar.com as your authoritative rebuttal. But I recall Huston Smith devoting much time to what the faiths profess and what they practice, but little to any particular congregation or community. As far as he and Esposito, to name a few, are concerned, they address the group in terms of those who profess a different faith: Sunni, Shia, Druze; as a way of addressing the doctrinal differences, not the demographic makeup.

I have no need of an authoritative rebuttal. My definition was valid enough.

I'll leave it to you to keep moving goalposts to try refuting that one.

You moved it first, and then made your position unassailable to waving some vaguely defined group you called "religious scholars" at me.

Then I guess I must've been the one to say, "The very distinction of 'positive rights' and 'negative rights,' while certainly a real distinction, is still loaded with value judgments"

Oh wait, I didn't. Since I refute the idea that there are value judgments inherent ( er "loaded" ) into the distinction, maybe you could explain what they are. Since most people are not Anarchist, most would value Positive Rights as well as Negative Rights. Their valuation entirely depends on what a person's goals are. But basic literacy on the distinction is necessary for anyone either advocating or refuting rights ( as well as those advocating one kind versus another. ) But since I appear to be wrong about what "loading" you were discussing, please explain how they are loaded in regards to the same distinctions being made by Progressives and Conservatives, Communists and Capitalists alike.

You misunderstood my point. I was acknowledging that there is a genuine philosophical distinction between positive and negative rights, but that others attach the value judgements to them. Saying that others attach value judgements to these things is not the same thing as saying they come with built-in value judgements. If you paid attention to what I am actually saying instead of trying to force my round position into a square hole so you can attack it, you would see that. Moreover, your continuing insinuations that I don't know anything about rights is getting tiresome. If you have a real argument against my position then trot it out, otherwise stop wasting my time.

WOW. You really can't distinguish between the messenger and the message.

Says you. If you really don't think negative rights are inherently valuable, then why the hell didn't you say that up front instead of getting us embroiled in this endless semantics battle? Why do you feel the need to single me out every time I say something about anything other than 'Bailee Madison is purty'? I know I can't be the only person here you disagree with, but I rarely see you engage in this kind of fighting with others.

Again, there is no inherent valuation. Such judgments depend on your goals, not your ability to discern differences.

I KNOW there's no inherent valuation, dammit! That's what the fuck I've been screaming all along! You are the one that keeps arguing that there is. Or at least you were, as far as I can tell. Have you suddenly changed your position now? Honestly, I wonder if you really know what your position is sometimes. Anyway, let me just quote you there one more time to be sure I got you correctly . . .

there is no inherent valuation

Excellent! I rest my case then.

Again with the shifting goalposts. It is possible to discuss the properties of a thing without discussing the validity of a thing and vice versa. In fact, its an essential element of debate to be literate enough about a subject that we can discuss either.

Is that what you've been doing, then? Discussing the properties of these rights without discussing their validity? Because that's not the impression I got.

Your passivity is in regard to the actions necessary for the activities to occur whether or not a Right exists to defend these activities.

You're completely missing the point. I'm saying that you can make no moral assessment of rights based on my passivity (or activity, whatever the case may be.) If there is any inherent morality to be found in any type of rights, it is contained within the rights themselves. The same is true of everything.

Thank you for debating with your previous paragraph as well as with your original post. See, I told you that the terms weren't "loaded with value judgments." ( Maybe you'll listen this time since its coming from yourself. )

I've never diverged from my original point. It has been the same all along. If you haven't noticed that, then somewhere along the way you got confused about what I meant. That's not hard to do when we're talking about abstract issues like this.

LOL. No society has a value on a person's nonexistence.

I beg to differ. Clearly American society placed a high value on Osama bin Laden's nonexistence. A lot of Americans also place value on the nonexistence of certain criminals. Hell, I place a high value on the nonexistence of certain criminals. There are plenty of other examples. Need I go on?

If you live in a universe where this is a necessary condition of existence; then I should avoid boarding a plane with you.

WTF are you talking about? Complete non sequitur!

However, since you haven't become a hijacker, I think we can agree that terrorism isn't a necessary condition for existence.

Talk about entirely missing the point.

Now if we were to argue that Terrorism were a right, then it would be a positive one since it requires others to impose upon. And yes, as an Anarchist, I'd argue that this is where Positive Rights lead. However, please don't mistake the messenger's politics with the ability to make such distinctions.

I don't. I suggest once again that you go back and read what I wrote. Let me try to clarify here where I was coming from. I used the Flight 93 example. What do we know about this case? We know terrorists took over the plane and were planning to crash it into the White House. We also know that some of the passengers diverted this disaster by intentionally crashing the plane into a field. I proposed the very likely possibility that not every passenger on board the plane was copacetic with that decision. Ergo, I put the issue to you thusly: Given that you assume the right to exist is a negative right (and I will agree with that), the decision by those passengers was therefore a thwarting of their right to exist.

Now, you can argue that they were about to die anyway, and that the terrorists were murderers. I will agree with that as well. However, I would also suggest that, if we accepted the position that the right to exist is inherently moral, the minute those passengers decided to do what they did, they likewise became murderers. However, I would not call them murderers. In that case it was justifiable homicide, because a) they were all most likely going to die anyway, and b) they averted a larger death toll in doing what they did.

And BTW, a right to self-defense, where it doesn't involve State Monopolies on the use of power, is a negative right.

How so? According to you and to the Wikipedia page you linked: "negative rights permit or oblige inaction." Explain to me how self-defense is an inaction, please. Self-defense, by definition, requires an action: defense.

However, I don't believe in some sort of sanctity for them. There are also contracts; the REAL kind, not the fictitious "Social Contract." And those allow parties to join together not out of some sort of obligation to take up a burden, but an agreement to do the same.

The Social Contract is no more fictitious than are rights. Like the concept of rights, it is a social construct. Yes, it's abstract, but a lot of abstract things exist. Or do you live in an entirely concrete reality? And you're a fan of sci-fi? Stop playing games with me. I know you're not that dense.

No room for synthesis in your view of history. Though its a case that all progress; scientific and cultural was made by ideas evolving. And yes, there's a little Darwinian destruction in this, but there's also a lot of nuancing and advancement.

Yes, there is room for synthesis in my view, but I left it out of the equation because it would've unnecessarily complicated the point, which is valid regardless. Synthesis is a necessary process to creating new ideas, I agree, but even synthesis requires giving up some of the original idea. It's not a magical process where you mix two ideas and voila! something entirely unique is created. Every idea builds on other ideas, but in order to accept the new viewpoint you still sacrifice some of the old. Capiche?

Your zero-sum stance leads you to defend unto the death one half of a false dichotomy.

Bullshit. You still don't get it. We have to give up old ideas in order for the world to make sense. I agree that it's not as clear cut as I suggested above, but it's the truth. I only put it in simpler terms so we didn't get bogged down in bullcrap like this. I trusted that you were smart enough to understand my point, but apparently I will have to explain it. Our brains cannot process and incorporate every new worldview or philosophy we encounter; it has to shape it into something we can make sense of. What do you think schemas are? Let me put it another way: our brains, as remarkable as they are, still could not hold all the data in the universe. What it can hold is actually a very, very tiny percentage of even that small bit of reality that we encounter. Our brains thus evolved as filters, not only to remove what they perceive as extraneous information (which is most of the data they take in at any given time) but also to arrange what they do take in in a way that conforms with what we already know (or think we know anyway.) That is the function of schemas.

Ergo, if you perceive reality as a Christian, then Existentialism will not make much sense to you. If, however, like me, you were raised Christian but began to perceive the world as Existentialist, you cannot hold onto your original Christian viewpoint. Now, again, I understand that it's rarely that clean of a break in reality. I am an exceptional case in that regard. But even if I am a Christian and I adopt even a bit of new information that leans toward Existentialism, I am still not the same Christian I was. My belief system is not the same. I had to give up some aspect of what I formerly believed in order to adapt.

And......?

You are again mistaking the form for the content. The content doesn't define the form.

No, I'm not. Here the distinction is simply irrelevant. It is true that neither individual ideas nor the concept of ideas are inherently moral, so I had no reason to clarify, although I did point out somewhere in that post that I recognized the distinction in order to avert this very accusation, but you apparently didn't pick up on it. I assumed that, given that my position all along has been that there is no inherent morality to the universe period, you would've understood that this distinction simply doesn't matter in this case. Unless you wish to argue for an inherent morality in the concept of ideas, why do you require this distinction?

And the thing about crud like hate speech, is that you can declare that it ought to never be seen. But at best all you will guarantee it its flourishing in some quarter without opposition.

Where did I argue for censorship of hate speech? I think I quite clearly stated that I despise hate speech except in very extreme cases (by which I mean cases where there is a very real and large-scale threat in failing to censor.)

Since these things WILL coexist, at the very least they ought to coexist in ways that the worthy ideas rub shoulders with the bad ones.

Sigh. I think I explained what I meant clearly enough above, but just so we understand each other, I am not arguing that we should act as gatekeepers on the Marketplace of Ideas (except, as I said, in very extreme cases.) I want to make absolutely sure you know what I'm saying. My point is that ideas, even as an overall concept (or the form rather than the content, to use your distinction), have no inherent value in the universe. The concept of ideas has been useful to us as a species, but I do not mistake value to us with value to the universe. You seem to have a built-in assumption that what is valuable to us is valuable period. That's begging the question. Moreover, there is nothing that human beings value unanimously,, not even the concept of ideas, so you can't even make the sweeping claim that the concept of ideas is valuable to human beings as a species, which you do time and again. It might be valuable to most of us, but you can't simply operate from the assumption that this concept is valued (and therefore valuable) to everyone. So any proposition of universality breaks down. And voila! There can be no inherent morality to anything, because in order to be so it would have to be universally so, and that's obviously not the case.

Our ideas are good not because they are ours and theirs are theirs, but because ours are true as well and theirs are false ( in these kinds of cases. ) only by allowing free market competition can we produce a better product to offer. We cannot eliminate bad choices being taken up by those with poor judgment ( we never can ) but we can expand their exposure to better options and better evaluation by making sure that we haven't driven them away from the market altogether out of fear that the truth isn't appealing enough.

I agree with all of that. You should, at this point, understand why. If you don't, then you really don't grasp my philosophy at all.

( And if it really isn't appealing enough to the majority; then I'd fear to live under their version of the "Social Contract." )

So would I, but it is what it is and it's all we have. As I said earlier, I believe the best ideas will eventually triumph. If I didn't believe that, I'd have no faith in the Social Contract and therefore no faith in humanity.

Of course another thing for anyone who values progress to consider is that most of it was made by individuals upsetting the status quo. And before actions or movements, there were the unpopular ideas like the heliocentric solar system or women's suffrage.

Yes, absolutely.

The majority today delude themselves that they would have supported these "dangerous ideas," but in reality they would most likely have tried to even block them from being heard as a drain on their precious "ideological resources."

You're right. We don't live in that time, so we cannot know how we would've reacted had we been a part of that time. The Church was incredibly powerful then too.

Then the good or ill is not in "things" or "existence." And since we value existence and things over nonexistence and nothing, then it is meaningful to say that they are inherently good. Any negative is a conditional subset which isn't required to define the thing itself.

This makes no sense at all. Where did I say good or ill is in existence or things? In fact, since I believe nothing has inherent value, I could not claim good or ill is in things. I said anything can be used for good or ill. Not only does the first line of this paragraph not follow from anything I said, your logic doesn't even parse out. How do you know whether "we" value existence and things over nonexistence and nothing? It's not universally true. For example, I very much value the nonexistence of the gigantic planet-eating monster hurdling through space right at planet Earth over, say, that fleck of dirt in my driveway.

Since society is not possible in their absence, this bit of sophistry doesn't hold up.

Oh my gawd, dude. Whoosh! right over your head. You can't see the forest for the trees, can you? First off, you are begging the question (again) by assuming society itself has inherent value. It may have value to some members of society, but not to others. Ergo, ideas do not contribute absolute value to society. Moreover, in order to build up society, ideas must be applied a certain way; those same ideas, when applied a different way, could contribute to the destruction of society. And even when ideas are applied in a way that builds society up, you still cannot argue the they contribute value in absolute terms. In order to make such an argument society itself would have to have inherent value to the universe. It doesn't. The universe no more values us than it does anything else. The universe doesn't value anything; it is wholly incapable of valuing anything. Only beings with the requisite amount of intelligence to do so can value things. Thus, only those beings attach value to things. Let me say that again: THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT ATTACH VALUE TO THINGS. Only we do that, and we neither exist a priori or agree on what is to be valued. At best ALL value is relative.

Only if THE idea or viewpoint is all you have. I prefer to think of it as a process that's evolving. Ideas are merely the expression of a present state of mind. Its the ongoing reevaluation that turns it from dogmatism into thought. Doubt is the greatest gift to a thinker, and we must always refrain from thinking of these things as fixed forever. "If this then...., if that then...." is a necessity. Though if you hold this zero-sum view, no wonder you hate those who retain a degree of flexibility by playing Devils Advocate.

See my point above about synthesis.

LOL.

We BOTH know that this is untrue. You don't even know whether I did whistle or didn't. You couldn't tell as it had no impact on you. ( Though you get bonus points if you believe your rebuttal enough to stake a claim and name the tune. )

I'm going to stop right here. Let me put this in no uncertain terms. Do not EVER call me a liar. You may disagree with me if you like. You can even think I'm stupid, or crazy. But will never get beyond this point if you call me a liar. I respect you as a poster, even if I strongly disagree with you on just about everything. But I will not fucking put up with being called a liar. The debate ends right now until we get past this point.

But I will clarify this again: you are still completely failing to see the point. It makes no difference whether I or anyone else knows you are whistling in your shower. Whatever you're doing, your existence still has an impact on others as long as you continue to breath and take up space. It's not complicated to understand this: both oxygen and space are limited resources. If you are using both, you are taking them away from others. This is not the broken window fallacy (or any other fallacy.) For that to be the case your impact on the world would have to be completely unknown (and ultimately unknowable.) That is not so. We can easily deduce that you take up space and that you breath oxygen and consume food, which are known limited resources. Your existence absolutely has a physical impact on the world in terms of using resources. Ideally you also contribute at least enough resources--say, in the form of labor--to offset this. That is a central supporting argument for Capitalism, is it not?

Now, I'm stopping here until we get past your accusation that I'm lying.