From Natural Objective Facts to Objective Moral Facts

[Harbal]

The society I live in grants me those rights, and I would no doubt grant them to myself in the face of any threat to my life, liberty and property.
I can't quite see how nature grants them to me, though.

"Know Thyself" - Socrates.

If you follow the above maxim, you will try to get to know your own inherent nature that is aligned with the generic human nature of ALL humans.

It is human nature [in fact the nature of all living things] is to live as long as possible till the inevitable. Nature has embedded that potential in you and all humans.
If you are not too sure of the above, try holding your breath as long as possible, if you are the normal majority [untrained] you won't be able to hold your breath for more than 30 seconds.

What is basic to all humans is 'freedom' [need precise definition] to live in optimizing one's well being.
It is from this fundamental freedom that arise the secondary elements of 'owning one self' right to property, and the likes.

If you were to research and explore on that human nature that is inherent in ALL humans, you will come to note the existence of moral elements that are represented by physical elements in terms of neural correlates, algorithm, genes, DNA, its related atoms and quarks.
These physical elements are the related moral facts, not the subjective feelings or interpretation of rightness and wrongness.

What is the relevance of this to my assertion that nature does not grant rights? Rights are a social construct, not a law of nature.

[Skepdick]

What is the relevance of this to my assertion that nature does not grant rights? Rights are a social construct, not a law of nature.

But isn't the natural/social construct distinction merely a gambit employed to dismiss the legitimacy of socially-constructed entities?

Ultimately it's a form of special pleading meant to imply that if nature granted rights to us then those rights would be legitimate; but because it's only humans who grant rights well.. those rights are "not real" rights.

Money is a social construct, but you still pay your bills.

In practice it doesn't matter who or what grants you the rights. What matters is only that those rights are upheld, so if somebody were to attack/undermine human rights on the basis that "human rights are just a social constructs" then the appropriate defense is a full-blown counter attack using the strategy-stealing strategy.

The natural/man-made distinction (the foundation of their argument!) is also a social construct! In practice humans are a part of nature; therefore anything humans do is natural.

Assume a perspective which seen any entity that is NOT itself as "part of nature". From that perspective all humans on planet Earth are "part of nature". That part of nature grants me human rights?!?!

Thanks, nature, for those rights!

[Harbal]

What is the relevance of this to my assertion that nature does not grant rights? Rights are a social construct, not a law of nature.

But isn't the natural/social construct distinction merely a gambit employed to dismiss the legitimacy of socially-constructed entities?

I am not dismissing any "socially-constructed entities", and so have no need of "gambits" for that purpose.

Ultimately it's a form of special pleading meant to imply that if nature granted rights to us then those rights would be legitimate; but because it's only humans who grant rights well.. those rights are "not real" rights.

So, whatever I say, you get to be the one who decides what I imply by it, do you? You seem to be one of those people who are addicted to indignance, and so throw erroneous accusations at folks in order to entitle yourself to feel outraged by them. I think they call it wokery.

The rights that human beings grant to one another can be "real" rights, but they are also the only rights. There is no other source of rights.

Money is a social construct, but you still pay your bills.

Yes, money is part of a system that works because of the agreement of its participants. You can't come to such agreements with nature. Nature neither issues money, nor accepts it in payment, just like it doesn't grant rights, or respect them.

In practice it doesn't matter who or what grants you the rights. What matters is only that those rights are upheld, so if somebody were to attack/undermine human rights on the basis that "human rights are just a social constructs" then the appropriate defense is a full-blown counter attack using the strategy-stealing strategy.

The natural/man-made distinction (the foundation of their argument!) is also a social construct! In practice humans are a part of nature; therefore anything humans do is natural.

Assume a perspective which seen any entity that is NOT itself as "part of nature". From that perspective all humans on planet Earth are "part of nature". That part of nature grants me human rights?!?!

Thanks, nature, for those rights!

I can't criticise the logic in this, because it doesn't contain any.

[henry quirk]

Well, okay then...carry on...

[henry quirk]

You don't have to, and -- right now -- I'm not arguing on that. No, I'm, as I say, lookin' for the downside to believing a man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property. So far, it seems, you agree there is none.

I'm gonna take that as a win.

Enjoy your victory, henry.

Our victory. You win too.

[Harbal]

Our victory. You win too.

Thanks, henry. I don't think we disagree on the principle, only the terms used to express it.

[henry quirk]

Our victory. You win too.

Thanks, henry. I don't think we disagree on the principle, only the terms used to express it.

Oh, I think we do disagree on the principle. You see no natural rights; I do (but, we can leave it there).

A primer... https://infogalactic.com/info/Natural_and_legal_rights... if you're interested.

[Harbal]

Our victory. You win too.

Thanks, henry. I don't think we disagree on the principle, only the terms used to express it.

Oh, I think we do disagree on the principle. You see no natural rights; I do (but, we can leave it there).

A primer... https://infogalactic.com/info/Natural_and_legal_rights... if you're interested.

Natural or "self evident" rights as a principle adopted throughout humanity is something I approve of and support. If embraced by all mankind, it is an idea that would benefit us all. I believe that rights only exist in the minds of people, though, and their value lies in their being put into practice by people.

[Skepdick]

What is the relevance of this to my assertion that nature does not grant rights? Rights are a social construct, not a law of nature.

But isn't the natural/social construct distinction merely a gambit employed to dismiss the legitimacy of socially-constructed entities?

I am not dismissing any "socially-constructed entities", and so have no need of "gambits" for that purpose.

Of course, I wasn't speaking about you. I was pointing to anybody who was employing that precise gambit for that purpose.

So, whatever I say, you get to be the one who decides what I imply by it, do you?

Why would that even be the case if you aren't even employing the gabmit?

You seem to be one of those people who are addicted to indignance, and so throw erroneous accusations at folks in order to entitle yourself to feel outraged by them. I think they call it wokery.

Appearances can be deceiving. And in this case - they have indeed deceived you.

The rights that human beings grant to one another can be "real" rights, but they are also the only rights. There is no other source of rights.

Is that a descriptive or prescriptive statement? Because I could go on to stretch some definitions; and reshuffle some concepts and do the usual goal-post moving stuff to make room for alternative sources.

There's a number of stories about animals being generous to humans and saving their life in various situations. Would you say that those animals (in some sense) respect the right to life?

Yes, money is part of a system that works because of the agreement of its participants. You can't come to such agreements with nature. Nature neither issues money, nor accepts it in payment, just like it doesn't grant rights, or respect them.

I tend to think of Nature as a vending machine. It's "contractually obliged" to do what it does. If you know what the buttons do - you can get exactly what you want. So there's an informal "agreement" in place that if I drop the apple, nature's going to make it fall to the ground.

If you've read and understood the "contract" you can "agree with nature". A lot.

I can't criticise the logic in this, because it doesn't contain any.

What do you mean?!? It contains the entire system of logic (ontology + deductions!) necessary to arrive exactly at the conclusion that I have arrived at.

Ontology. There are only two ontological categories:
1. Me.
2. Not me (a.k.a Nature).

P1. Other humans are not me.
C1. Other humans are (part of) Nature.
P2. Other humans ( who are part of Nature) grant me rights.
C2. (part of) Nature grants me rights.

[Harbal]

There's a number of stories about animals being generous to humans and saving their life in various situations. Would you say that those animals (in some sense) respect the right to life?

How could a meaningful opinion be given in response to something as vague as that?

[Skepdick]

There's a number of stories about animals being generous to humans and saving their life in various situations. Would you say that those animals (in some sense) respect the right to life?

How could a meaningful opinion be given in response to something as vague as that?

Is it really that vague?

Somebody is trying to kill you. A police officer intervenes and saves your life. Would you say that the police officer respected/upheld/defended your right to life?

[Harbal]

Is it really that vague?

Somebody is trying to kill you. A police officer intervenes and saves your life. Would you say that the police officer respected/upheld/defended your right to life?

Is it a human police officer? It's just that your other question was about animals.

[Skepdick]

Is it really that vague?

Somebody is trying to kill you. A police officer intervenes and saves your life. Would you say that the police officer respected/upheld/defended your right to life?

Is it a human police officer? It's just that your other question was about animals.

Whichever.

Do you think the nature of the police officer affects the vagueness of the question?

[Harbal]

Do you think the nature of the police officer affects the vagueness of the question?

Give me the bottom line again. As concisely as possible, tell me the point you are trying to prove.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At the very least, even if it's all bunkum, believing you are your own gives you reason to fight and resist. How much of a fight will one put up if he believes he's just meat and has no claim to himself?

No matter how you cut it: I see no downside to recognizing, or just believing, man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

The society I live in grants me those rights, and I would no doubt grant them to myself in the face of any threat to my life, liberty and property.
I can't quite see how nature grants them to me, though.

"Know Thyself" - Socrates.

If you follow the above maxim, you will try to get to know your own inherent nature that is aligned with the generic human nature of ALL humans.

It is human nature [in fact the nature of all living things] is to live as long as possible till the inevitable. Nature has embedded that potential in you and all humans.
If you are not too sure of the above, try holding your breath as long as possible, if you are the normal majority [untrained] you won't be able to hold your breath for more than 30 seconds.

What is basic to all humans is 'freedom' [need precise definition] to live in optimizing one's well being.
It is from this fundamental freedom that arise the secondary elements of 'owning one self' right to property, and the likes.

If you were to research and explore on that human nature that is inherent in ALL humans, you will come to note the existence of moral elements that are represented by physical elements in terms of neural correlates, algorithm, genes, DNA, its related atoms and quarks.
These physical elements are the related moral facts, not the subjective feelings or interpretation of rightness and wrongness.

What is the relevance of this to my assertion that nature does not grant rights? Rights are a social construct, not a law of nature.

Note the OP is about Natural Objective Fact which in this case is 'Freedom' [liberty] which Henry interpreted in terms of the 'right to own oneself' naturally, thus slavery [human own by another] is immoral.

Then you tried to switch the point to 'rights granted by society' which is not natural, inherent in humans nor related to nature directly.

Thus, I highlighted 'Know Thyself' and following that maxim will enable you to understand what are 'rights' naturally [i.e. nature and human nature] within oneself in contrast to rights granted by society.

Personally I would not want to use the term 'rights' in relation to morality.
Re 'slavery' there exists inherently in ALL humans, the moral potential and function [active, not so active, dormant] of ought-not-ness to own another human; this is represented by neural inhibitors comprising physical elements of neurons, algorithm, genes, DNA, quarks within the human self.
This physical set is the objective moral facts related to 'slavery is immoral'.

There is no need for 'rightness' nor 'wrongness' [which are merely manifestations and expression of thoughts from those moral facts] as the main issue re morality as insisted by Peter Holmes et. al.