Political Crossfire Forums

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: case in point, you have called out Locke, who is well known as being an Empircist, as for being a form of utilitarian.

Please point out where I claimed that Locke was a utilitarian or admit that you are a LIAR.

BTW, since it's apparent that you are not aware, empiricist is not the opposite of utilitarian, it is the opposite of rationalist. Empiricism and rationalism are approaches to epistemology; deontology and consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a form) are approaches to ethics.

Quote:
that's just nuts. i am done with you.

That's the second time you have falsely made that claim.

but you are the one who brought up mill when i was talking about locke,

Yes, I brought up Mill and Mill was a utilitarian. So are you admitting that you were mistaken when you claimed that I said Locke was a utilitarian?

Quote:
thus the obvious logical fallacy you are introducing, aka apples and oranges.

What logical fallacy? Name it or shut up already. The subject of this thread is "rights" not John Locke. JS Mill had quite a bit to say about rights, so there is nothing wrong with me quoting him.

Quote:
and again, i am done with you. i am not, however, finished arguing with you.

Yes, you finished arguing quite awhile ago, now you are just flopping around spouting nonsense.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: case in point, you have called out Locke, who is well known as being an Empircist, as for being a form of utilitarian.

Please point out where I claimed that Locke was a utilitarian or admit that you are a LIAR.

BTW, since it's apparent that you are not aware, empiricist is not the opposite of utilitarian, it is the opposite of rationalist. Empiricism and rationalism are approaches to epistemology; deontology and consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a form) are approaches to ethics.

Quote:
that's just nuts. i am done with you.

That's the second time you have falsely made that claim.

but you are the one who brought up mill when i was talking about locke,

Yes, I brought up Mill and Mill was a utilitarian. So are you admitting that you were mistaken when you claimed that I said Locke was a utilitarian?

Quote:
thus the obvious logical fallacy you are introducing, aka apples and oranges.

What logical fallacy? Name it or shut up already. The subject of this thread is "rights" not John Locke. JS Mill had quite a bit to say about rights, so there is nothing wrong with me quoting him.

Quote:
and again, i am done with you. i am not, however, finished arguing with you.

Yes, you finished arguing quite awhile ago, now you are just flopping around spouting nonsense.

you were countering my Lockean argument with Mill, and its obvious to anyone who can read an understand. which seems to not include you, at this moment.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RtD,

this is quoted for your benefit as well.

The Impeacher wrote: Cato wrote: TI wrote: i am not dodging, you are uniformed and are a poor rhetoritican.

I wouldn't say he's uninformed... However, I think we agree he's a poor rhetorician: he's a good philosopher (I don't care what Cicero says).

At any rate, I have very little experience with Locke, and this conversation has sparked my curiosity. Any introductory sources you can recommend?

i'd say the informed are good at rhetoric, but i follow your gist... ;)

i really like wiki to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

the important thing is to review Empircists/ism real quick, which is easy to do their with the embedded links.

to really appreciate the argument, you should be sure to contrast it with Hobbes, and that perspective of the state of nature - which preceded Locke. for comparison, read the Rousseau article, and then his take on the social contract - AFTER you get the gist of Locke. [this would also give you the proper timeline of these arguments]

if you are still hungry, go get some Baron de Montesquieu for desert, or some Hume.

however, the real meat is at the bottom of these pages - as they link to free text versions of the documents - the gutenburg resource[s] is the best, imho.

Locke's writings have the advantage of being short - you could read them all in a day. understanding and appreciating them though, may take awhile. it is, however very rewarding, imho.

if you scroll up, you can find a link to the relevant sections Second Treatise of Civil Government, but it's still a good idea to read the overview article on wiki [probaly both beofre and after you breeze the actual document] :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

or

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

same with tehe overview on An Essay if Human Understanding.

this would them illuminate the differnce between an innate right and an innate idea. the catalyst being reason and the social contract.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: case in point, you have called out Locke, who is well known as being an Empircist, as for being a form of utilitarian.

Please point out where I claimed that Locke was a utilitarian or admit that you are a LIAR.

BTW, since it's apparent that you are not aware, empiricist is not the opposite of utilitarian, it is the opposite of rationalist. Empiricism and rationalism are approaches to epistemology; deontology and consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a form) are approaches to ethics.

Quote:
that's just nuts. i am done with you.

That's the second time you have falsely made that claim.

but you are the one who brought up mill when i was talking about locke,

Yes, I brought up Mill and Mill was a utilitarian. So are you admitting that you were mistaken when you claimed that I said Locke was a utilitarian?

Quote:
thus the obvious logical fallacy you are introducing, aka apples and oranges.

What logical fallacy? Name it or shut up already. The subject of this thread is "rights" not John Locke. JS Mill had quite a bit to say about rights, so there is nothing wrong with me quoting him.

Quote:
and again, i am done with you. i am not, however, finished arguing with you.

Yes, you finished arguing quite awhile ago, now you are just flopping around spouting nonsense.

you were countering my Lockean argument with Mill, and its obvious to anyone who can read an understand. which seems to not include you, at this moment.

I used a quote from Mill to emphasize the silliness of talk about "natural rights". I'm still waiting for you to admit your mistake.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: RtD,

this is quoted for your benefit as well.

The Impeacher wrote: Cato wrote: TI wrote: i am not dodging, you are uniformed and are a poor rhetoritican.

I wouldn't say he's uninformed... However, I think we agree he's a poor rhetorician: he's a good philosopher (I don't care what Cicero says).

At any rate, I have very little experience with Locke, and this conversation has sparked my curiosity. Any introductory sources you can recommend?

i'd say the informed are good at rhetoric, but i follow your gist... ;)

i really like wiki to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

the important thing is to review Empircists/ism real quick, which is easy to do their with the embedded links.

to really appreciate the argument, you should be sure to contrast it with Hobbes, and that perspective of the state of nature - which preceded Locke. for comparison, read the Rousseau article, and then his take on the social contract - AFTER you get the gist of Locke. [this would also give you the proper timeline of these arguments]

if you are still hungry, go get some Baron de Montesquieu for desert, or some Hume.

however, the real meat is at the bottom of these pages - as they link to free text versions of the documents - the gutenburg resource[s] is the best, imho.

Locke's writings have the advantage of being short - you could read them all in a day. understanding and appreciating them though, may take awhile. it is, however very rewarding, imho.

if you scroll up, you can find a link to the relevant sections Second Treatise of Civil Government, but it's still a good idea to read the overview article on wiki [probaly both beofre and after you breeze the actual document] :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

or

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

same with tehe overview on An Essay if Human Understanding.

this would them illuminate the differnce between an innate right and an innate idea. the catalyst being reason and the social contract.

Let me know when you understand the difference between epistemology and ethics.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

a reminder of when you introduced the fallcious principal of comparing utilitarian ethics [only one of 3 schools, i remind you] with moral sentiments and reason/Empircism [Empircism, again is born of experince via REASON].

RueTheDay wrote:

Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

your statement, "rights are a scoial constructt, born of EXPERIENCE" is EMPIRICIST THOUGHT. THAT IS LOCKE'S ARGUMENT.

your illogic is stifling.

mill is a utlitiarian, a form of rationalism, and not an empricist. get a grip.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: a reminder of when you introduced the fallcious principal of comparing utilitarian ethics [only one of 3 schools, i remind you] with moral sentiments and reason/Empircism [Empircism, again is born of experince via REASON].

Empiricism is knowledge based upon sense experience INDEPENDENT of reason.

Quote:
your statment, "rights are a scoial constructt, born of EXPERIENCE" is EMPIRICIST THOUGHT. THAT IS LOCKE'S ARGUMENT.

No, it's a claim that rights exist a posteriori rather than a priori.

Please provide a quote from Locke where he claims that rights are a RESULT of the social contract. I'll be waiting.

Quote: mill is a utlitiarian, a form of rationalism, and not an empricist. get a grip.

OMFG your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding. You are again confusing epistemological terms with ethical ones.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: a reminder of when you introduced the fallcious principal of comparing utilitarian ethics [only one of 3 schools, i remind you] with moral sentiments and reason/Empircism [Empircism, again is born of experince via REASON].

Empiricism is knowledge based upon sense experience INDEPENDENT of reason.

did you just just say that knowledge is INDEPENDENT of REASON? :lol:

WRONG.

Empricism is at the heart of the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
your statment, "rights are a scoial construct, born of EXPERIENCE" is EMPIRICIST THOUGHT. THAT IS LOCKE'S ARGUMENT.

No, it's a claim that rights exist a posteriori rather than a priori.

Please provide a quote from Locke where he claims that rights are a RESULT of the social contract. I'll be waiting.

no, natural rights are the result of our reason and experince living in social groups with nature. they are born of the laws of nature, and our ability to reason is what allows us to agree to live under the consent of government to protect those rights.

i have already provided the links, you are already wrong.

RueTheDay wrote: Quote: mill is a utilitiarian, a form of rationalism, and not an empricist. get a grip.

OMFG your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding. You are again confusing epistemological terms with ethical ones.

no, you confused natural rights with utitlitarian principals.

RueTheDay wrote: Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

you compare and use Mill to NATURAL RIGHTS - you then go on to talk about rights as being born of experience, which is EMPIRICISM. Locke was an EMRIRICIST.

that is what Locke argued, you FOOL!

its as if you are using Locke to refute Locke! i dont give a s**t about a priori v ex post facto, again - that is the differnce between EMPIRICISM and UTILITARIAN ETHICS. APPLES AND ORANGES.

pull your head out already.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: a reminder of when you introduced the fallcious principal of comparing utilitarian ethics [only one of 3 schools, i remind you] with moral sentiments and reason/Empircism [Empircism, again is born of experince via REASON].

Empiricism is knowledge based upon sense experience INDEPENDENT of reason.

did you just just say that knowledge is INDEPENDENT of REASON? :lol:

Historically, there have been two theories of how people acquire knowledge. Empiricists believed knowledge came from sense experience; rationalists believed knowledge came from reasoning. Most modern philosophers believe it comes from both. Pretty soon I'm going to have to start charging you for the education I'm providing you.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
your statment, "rights are a scoial construct, born of EXPERIENCE" is EMPIRICIST THOUGHT. THAT IS LOCKE'S ARGUMENT.

No, it's a claim that rights exist a posteriori rather than a priori.

Please provide a quote from Locke where he claims that rights are a RESULT of the social contract. I'll be waiting.

no, natural rights are the result of our reason and experince living in social groups with nature. they are born of the laws of nature, and our ability to reason is what allows us to agree to live under the consent of government to protect those rights.

Your first sentence above is essentially correct; unfortunately you go downhill from there.

Quote: i have already provided the links, you are already wrong.

I asked for a quote from Locke, not a Wikipedia entry about Locke. Nice try though.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote: mill is a utlitiarian, a form of rationalism, and not an empricist. get a grip.

OMFG your lack of knowledge on the subject is astounding. You are again confusing epistemological terms with ethical ones.

no, you confused natural rights with utitlitarian principals.

Nope, I did no such thing..

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

you compare and use Mill to NATURAL RIGHTS - you then go on to talk about rights as being born of experience, which is EMPIRICISM. Locke was an EMPRIRICIST.

that is what Locke argued, you FOOL!

its as if you are using Locke to refute Locke! i dont give a s**t about a priori v ex post facto, again - that is the differnce between EMPRICISM and UTILITARIAN ETHICS. APPLES AND ORANGES.

Empiricism is not a form of ethics. Stop embarrassing yourself.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

:lol:

it's now clear to me you are intentially being a sophist troll.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: :lol:

it's now clear to me you are intentially being a sophist troll.

Is that an admission of defeat?

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: :lol:

it's now clear to me you are intentially being a sophist troll.

Is that an admission of defeat?

:lol:

what you cannot win, i cannot lose.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

here is an example of sophist rhetorical trolling, EXPOSED.

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: that is the differnce between EMPRICISM and UTILITARIAN ETHICS. APPLES AND ORANGES.

Empiricism is not a form of ethics. Stop embarrassing yourself.

i just said empricism is the apple, and utlitarian logic/ethics is the orange.

i think its safe to say that an apple is not a form of orange, which is why i said it.

:lol:

RueTheDay wrote: I used a quote from Mill to emphasize the silliness of talk about "natural rights".

your witty saying only proves comparing apples to oranges is silly. seeems you've embarrased yourself. it did prove much about your own reasoning skillz, tho.

8:)

perhaps next you will share your theory on how Empiricism does not use REASON, but "only experience" - in terms of knowledge construction...

:lol:

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: here is an example of sophist rhetorical trolling, EXPOSED.

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: that is the differnce between EMPRICISM and UTILITARIAN ETHICS. APPLES AND ORANGES.

Empiricism is not a form of ethics. Stop embarrassing yourself.

i just said empricism is the apple, and utlitarian logic/ethics is the orange.

i think its safe to say that an apple is not a form of orange, which is why i said it.

:lol:

RueTheDay wrote: I used a quote from Mill to emphasize the silliness of talk about "natural rights".

your witty saying only proves comparing apples to oranges is silly. seeems you've embarrased yourself. it did prove much about your own reasoning skillz, tho.

8:)

perhaps next you will share your theory on how Empiricism does not use REASON, but "only experience" - in terms of knowledge construction...

:lol:

You embarrass yourself more with each post.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RueTheDay wrote:

You embarrass yourself more with each post.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

Anyone else on here that actually wants to engage in discussion/debate rather than just silly pissing contests?

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RueTheDay wrote: Anyone else on here that actually wants to engage in discussion/debate rather than just silly pissing contests?

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

RtD wrote: Anyone else on here that actually wants to engage in discussion/debate rather than just silly pissing contests?

Yeah, sure; since TI seems to be writing in invisible ink anyway...

RtD wrote: Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

I think we agree. Our system of 'human rights' is a response to the circumstances of our time. Moral systems are relative to the time and place of their conception. I think there's a danger in holding 'human rights' to be an innate moral system. I mean, don't we suffer enough from the dead-hand of religious morality in this age to realize that moral systems should always be suspect?

On a different note, our system of 'rights' is designed for a democratic social system, and so, yes, it is 'majoritarian' (perforce). But, I don't think this is necessarily true for all moral systems. For instance, what King David's priests publish as truth proper is truth proper. In any case, I would define moral systems as coercive structures designed to homogenize behavior that are relative (and relevant) to the circumstances of the time and place of their conception.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

Cato wrote: RtD wrote: Anyone else on here that actually wants to engage in discussion/debate rather than just silly pissing contests?

Yeah, sure; since TI seems to be writing in invisible ink anyway...

RtD wrote: Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

I think we agree. Our system of 'human rights' is a response to the circumstances of our time. Moral systems are relative to the time and place of their conception. I think there's a danger in holding 'human rights' to be an innate moral system. I mean, don't we suffer enough from the dead-hand of religious morality in this age to realize that moral systems should always be suspect?

Exactly my point.

Quote:
On a different note, our system of 'rights' is designed for a democratic social system, and so, yes, it is 'majoritarian' (perforce).

Yes. Our moral structure is heavily dependent upon our belief that government should be of, by, and for the people; thus, our conception of rights as something that should constrain those majoritarian preferences under certain conditions.

Quote:
But, I don't think this is necessarily true for all moral systems. For instance, what King David's priests publish as truth proper is truth proper.

A concept of rights under a totalitarian system (if such a concept existed) would simply be as a constraint upon the ruler's preferences. To generalize, I suppose we could say that rights can be a part of virtually any political system where we say that the X may Y except that Y can never Z, where X is the source of sovereignty (the people in a democracy, a monarch in a monarchy, etc.), Y are actions that X may take, and Z are the rights which serve as constraints upon those actions.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

you guys just don't get it, natural rights ARE a social invention as the key part of the social contract - it is NATURAL LAW that is innate, and its is through the process of REASON that we have designed or claimed to have said specific rights.

if the rights were truly, permanently innate and iron clad, the system would not need be democratic and based upon consent.

you only have those "innate" rights as part of the social contract. thus, born into the contract you have those right ennumerated.

no contract, no rights.

you act as if we had natural rights BEFORE we invented the social contract, which is aka the CONSTITUTION.

our rights are inalienable because of the contract... and we can abolish this contract at any time.