 |
| |
|
|
Dracon II
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 1970
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
So, the idea that all humans are created equal is nothing but a falsity in your opinion? |
There isn't much evidence that suggests that all men are created equal. Firstly, very little evidence that men were created, and secondly that they are all equal.
Men have differing capacities. Different IQs, different strength, different wealth, different environmental conditions, and so on and so on. We happen to live in countries that assume equality politically and legally, but even this still does not eliminate inequality. If equality is to be anything, it is to be a goal for humanity to achieve, not an a priori characteristic of humanity.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Whatever the originators of such ideas believed in when they articulated their ideas does not determine the legitimacy of such ideas. |
It's legitimate only because we say it is. There are only two options here: either rights are man-made, or they are "natural" (which is really what the Founder's meant by God-given). Now, most things that are "natural" -- gravity for instance -- are observable and/or testable. That, in fact, is the very thing that leads us to label them "natural." Do rights fit into that category? No, they do not. You can believe that the right to life is something more than a manmade construct; you can also believe that the world is in the hands of 12 incestuous gods who dwell upon Olympus. Your belief seems very real to you, I'm sure. But it's your belief -- it eminates from a human being.
quote:
What is important, is that these ideas are capable of interpretation to expand into broader inclusion of an increasing number of groups/types of people. |
I agree. In fact, I'm not a relativist on this point. I believe in a right to life, and I believe that others who believe differently are wrong. That doesn't make rights any less of a human construct.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dracon II
There isn't much evidence that suggests that all men are created equal. Firstly, very little evidence that men were created, and secondly that they are all equal.
Men have differing capacities. Different IQs, different strength, different wealth, different environmental conditions, and so on and so on. We happen to live in countries that assume equality politically and legally, but even this still does not eliminate inequality. If equality is to be anything, it is to be a goal for humanity to achieve, not an a priori characteristic of humanity. |
Yes, but the means with which to measure a person's potential of these traits (intelligence, strength, moral quality and income earning ability) are so crude that to take a young child, test it, and from the results judge its future amounts to little more than prejudice. I've known kids who seemed slow who after being put in the right situation blossomed intellectually. Surely we all know that most people can dramatically improve their strength by a well planned regimen of exercise. I'd guess we all have known someone who though pretending to be morally pure, turned out to have some damning traits hidden under the facade. Finally, we all realise that being born to wealth doesn't mean a person is a natural money maker. American history is replete with the names of families that rose to wealth in one generation, only to have it squandered away in the next. We also know of people who came from dire cirtcumstances and rose to financial greatness. Andrew Carnegie was sent to the US alone, lived like a virtual orphan, but became the world's first billionaire.
The idea of universal equality was invented by the philosophes of the eighteenth century enlightenment as a countr-foil to the divine right philosophy of the monarchs and aristocrats of that era. Looking back at that age, so jam backed with the stupidity and moral depravitiy of the privileged, it's easy to see how the middle class could have reached that conclusion
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
It's legitimate only because we say it is. There are only two options here: either rights are man-made, or they are "natural" (which is really what the Founder's meant by God-given). Now, most things that are "natural" -- gravity for instance -- are observable and/or testable. That, in fact, is the very thing that leads us to label them "natural." Do rights fit into that category? No, they do not. You can believe that the right to life is something more than a manmade construct; you can also believe that the world is in the hands of 12 incestuous gods who dwell upon Olympus. Your belief seems very real to you, I'm sure. But it's your belief -- it eminates from a human being.
|
If you believe that some people are born to rule you eventually get a total idiot like Alexander Romanov II or Naploleon Bonaparte III at the helm of state, thus proving that all men are created equal. quote:
I agree. In fact, I'm not a relativist on this point. I believe in a right to life, and I believe that others who believe differently are wrong. That doesn't make rights any less of a human construct. |
OTOH the very nature of man (a creature of nature) is that without rights a society will fall into the rule of tyranny. Since one dictator or one small group of oligarchs, seeing the world from their limited perspectives, cannot possibly give optimal guidance to all the people with their diverse capabilities and manifold needs the society without rights is bound to diminish its constituents rather than giving them room to flourish. Thus it is natural that the society without rights will give way to the society with rights. Therefore rights are natural.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
One could say that free markets, nazism, communism, islamic fundamentalism are all the children of modernity. The idea than one system will fit all, it is for everybody. (of the same disposition and the others are mistaken)
Post-modernity was born out of the gloom of the realization that science cannot solve everything. WW2 laid a lot of weight to that point of view. Both WW were after the "great promise of science" was given (it will solve all problems) and according to some, not kept.
There's something missing. The apollonean light is not enough. You have to have some dionysean mysticism too.
While I keep some faith in modernity I can also see some positive aspects in post-modernity too although one has to be very careful.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 31-05-2005 at 01:35
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
But the bigger questions can't be answered by science, wouldn't you agree? Can man live only with a VCR manual?
I always thought of science as a "lesser thing". It is useful for giving me hot water and curing diseases of the mortal flesh but apart from that, what? I always thought of scientists as car mechanics without that meaning that I don't respect them or their craft or don't think that what they do is very important. But for the really important questions science is as inept as a little child IMO. That's what you have the "theoretical sciences" for, philosophy, anthropology, political theory, communications theory, history etc
But are those enough to quench the really big questions? Of course they're much more capable than the "positive sciences" to try and explain some of the big questions but do they have what it is needed to go all the way? I don't know. The dionysean aspect of man though may hold answers that none of the theoretical sciences could give. I'm not talking metaphysics or anything of that sort but the closeness to the inner soul that mysticism may hide. Like the Eleusinian mysteries before that alarichos put a tomb on them.
Anyway just saying
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-05-2005 04:30
He talked about man-made structures, there was no claim of reality vs irreality here.
but I think that this idea is a social and political artifice that has only been around for the past 200 years. It's good, and perhaps it's utilitarian, but I don't think Jefferson had a crystal ball with which to look into the fundamental a priori characteristics of human creation.
|