Dangers of Global Warming

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:27:29 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:19:54 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Right or wrong cannot be used to describe ethical choices, only
to
describe efficiency in reaching some stated goal.

Factual rights or wrongs can of course not be altered by
dictators.

The first paragraph reminded me of a quote from somewhe "Life
and death =
are
seldom logical." - McCoy; "But attaining a desired goal always is."
- Spock=
,
"The Galileo Seven".

I've admitted that it would not be possible to determine what is
right, or =
wrong, in the moral sense, by applying the scientific method to
Nature.

Thus, indeed, it would seem that I would not have the tools to
convince you=

that moral relativism or ethical relativism are "wrong", in the
same sense =
that
the phlogiston theory of combustion is wrong.

If one's desired goal is to train field anthropologists, moral
relativism i=
s
useful, since one wishes them to be objective in assessing a
different cult=
ure
with different core assumptions.

And, incidentally, I came across this interesting article in
Googling:


http://www.slate.com/articles/health...2013/05/napole
on_c=

hagnon_controversy_anthropologists_battle_over_the _nature_of_fierceness
..htm=
l

However, if one's desired goal is to arouse people to abolish
slavery, to j=
oin or support the civil rights movement, or something like that,
then it w=
ould *appear* that the notion of moral relativism completely
destroys the a=
bility to criticize the existing ways of a society as flawed.

If this is not the case, then there are two questions:

- what is the language one would use instead for such purposes, and

- is it perhaps too circumlocutionary for ordinary use?

If one wishes to abolish slavery, it is of course right to stand upp
against slave-owners, otherwise slavery will continue.

If one considers slavery wrong in some absolute sense, then some
other things which still is in common practice will be just as
absolutely wrong, such as keeping cattle in farms instead of setting
them free.

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 07:56:01 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 04:23:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-5, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

Because there currently are many restrictions, and there is no
absolute right. I'm arguing that there should be.

Why should there be an "absolute right?"

Why shouldn't there be?

Perhaps because no god or other supreme being said so?

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 08:31:12 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:27:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 04:23:13 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-5, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

Because there currently are many restrictions, and there is no
absolute right. I'm arguing that there should be.

Why should there be an "absolute right?"

Why shouldn't there be?

If you are going to claim that there "should be" an "absolute
right" to such a thing, then you had better be prepared to give
reasons as to WHY.

Because most of the people in a society consider it important enough
to grant that status. Pretty simple, really.

For precisely the same reason, the Earth was flat many centuries
ago... ;-)

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:12:39 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:56:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:31:14 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:27:26 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-5, Chris L
Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 04:23:13 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-5, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

Because there currently are many restrictions, and there
is no
absolute right. I'm arguing that there should be.

Why should there be an "absolute right?"

Why shouldn't there be?

If you are going to claim that there "should be" an "absolute
right" to such a thing, then you had better be prepared to give
reasons as to WHY.

Because most of the people in a society consider it important
enough
to grant that status.

Then why do "most of the people in a society" consider it
"important enough?"

Not that they do, actually:


http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/29/g...ricans-want-al
l-or-most-abortions-made-illegal/

First of all, you confuse "majority" with "consensus". They are very
different. We do not base rights on majority opinion... or should
not.

Second of all, I'm not discussing what our society actually believes
at this moment in time, but what I think a society ought to look
like...

Which means there should be an "absolute right" because Chris L
Peterson thinks so?

Perhaps we could call this the egotheistical worldview...



and certainly, societal views shift, and what people consider
rights shift along with them.

The reality is that societies do integrate the views of their
citizens
in ways that result in widely held views that can be attributed to
the
society as a whole, and this forms a large part of the basis of
rights
and laws, especially in politically free societies.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:08:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:23:01 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

You are confusing facts with opinions. Ethics choices can be
desirable or undesirable, but not right or wrong.

What do you mean by desirable or undesirable? Desirable or
undesirable by any
given individual, or desirable or undesirable in general?

The latter, "desirable in general", could be taken as equivalent to
"correct".

Do you think the Earth actually was flat many centuries ago just
because a clear majority of the people who lived back then believed
so?

Correctness cannot be determined by a majority vote.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:30:35 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:08:30 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

I don't know of any country that has or does recognize natural
rights.

Hmm.

I can think of one country that...comes close.

The Constitution of the United States is the legally-binding
document under
which the laws of the United States are made and interpreted.

On the other hand, the Declaration of Independence is generally
held not to be
a legally binding document. Some people, though, have noted that
the principles
which Declaration of Independence expresses have greater popular
support and
appeal than the content of the Constitution.

And the Declaration of Independence, at least, *is* unabashedly
based on the notion of "natural law":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that
they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these
Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the
consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government
becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.

The very first two words here, "We hold", clearly shows that the
authors of this text is expressing their opinion. Therefore the
rights expressed here are civil rights, not natural rights. If
civilisation should vanish, civil rights would vanish with it, while
natural rights, if any, would remain.

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 12:14:05 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

If one considers slavery wrong in some absolute sense, then some
other things which still is in common practice will be just as
absolutely wrong, such as keeping cattle in farms instead of setting
them free.

Now that seems to me to be a rather wild _non sequitur_.

Most people who believe in some form of absolute morality also believe that the
distinction between humans - all humans, including people of different ethnic
groups - as rational beings, on the one hand, and (other) animals such as cows,
pigs, and horses on the other is a sharp and absolute distinction, not one that
is relative or ambiguous.

Of course people who subscribe to ideas such as "animal liberation" will find
that viewpoint flawed. However, such people are generally regarded as
constituting a small and eccentric minority, not as having serious and valid
points that need to be taken into consideration.

As well, this attitude is dependent on some contingent facts - such as the fact
that nothing survives between H. Sapiens on the one hand, and P. Troglodytes
and P. Paniscus on the other. If our ancestors hadn't been so efficient at
killing off H. Neanderthalis, H. Erectus, A. Africanus and A. Robustus - if we
lived in a world like that in Harry Harrison's "A Different Flesh", in other
words - it would be harder to deny that humanity and rationality are part of a
continuum.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 12:46:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:08:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:23:01 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

You are confusing facts with opinions. Ethics choices can be
desirable or undesirable, but not right or wrong.

What do you mean by desirable or undesirable? Desirable or
undesirable by any
given individual, or desirable or undesirable in general?

The latter, "desirable in general", could be taken as equivalent to
"correct".

Do you think the Earth actually was flat many centuries ago just
because a clear majority of the people who lived back then believed
so?

Correctness cannot be determined by a majority vote.

Oh, I quite agree with that.

By "desirable in general", I meant something more broad.

I reject the moral relativist view precisely *because* at one time a majority
of white people were OK with Negro slavery, and so on.

Instead, I'm thinking in terms of moral rules that are phrased as universals -
with labels like "you", "me", "my group", "this other group" systematically
removed - that are acknowledged as desirable (excluding unusual cases that can
be explained somehow) by every human society that ever existed, or ever will
exist.

One could reasonably conclude that such rules accord well with the nature of
human beings, and are thus appropriate for them.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 12:56:21 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The very first two words here, "We hold", clearly shows that the
authors of this text is expressing their opinion.

I hold that, as a consequence of the Sun's mass being significantly greater than
the mass of the Earth, the Solar System may be better approximated by considering
the Earth to revolve about the Sun than the reverse.

The authors of the text are expressing their common *belief*; whether it is
shared opinion, religious faith, or acceptance, mistaken or otherwise, of
perceived fact, is, in fact, left ambiguous by the construction quoted.

John Savard

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:42:29 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Second of all, I'm not discussing what our society actually believes
at this moment in time, but what I think a society ought to look
like...

Which means there should be an "absolute right" because Chris L
Peterson thinks so?
Perhaps we could call this the egotheistical worldview...

What Chris L Peterson thinks is that humans define rights, and that
"absolute right" isn't an unreasonable word for us humans to use to
represent the rights we place the most value on (rather like we might
use "privilege" to define those of lesser value). I fail to see
anything remotely egotistical in this suggestion, unless you define
"egotistical" as "having an opinion".