Open Letter to Woke Students

[Gary Childress]

Right now, I'm the will to get the fuck out of this crazy insane world in the most bearable and endurable way possible. I'll let everyone else figure out for themselves what they want most.

Curiously, and perhaps more than anyone (thought Kropokin is very revealing of his inner positions) Gary has presented his self to the forum in nearly grotesque *honesty*. This interests me. But it is an honesty of the sort that one would almost rather not hear about -- I mean the details.

But I have noticed something odd: the appeal is to *therapy* (present me with a cure, present me with *salvation" of my dire problem) but when the therapeutic advice is offered, it is rejected.

"No, I just want to die (but in the most painless way possible)".

As I've stated repeatedly, this world is a pit as far as I'm concerned. There is no "therapy" for me. There is no "cure" for me. It's a pit. Everything that I do or say in seeking happiness is little more than an assault on someone or something else's happiness. My removal from the world would obviously be no great loss to anyone or anything else, most likely, even their gain. I'm diseased. The only noble or pious thing I could do is self-eradication. If I weren't terrified of death, I'd do that noble or pious act. So there goes my only option for nobility or piety. Enter Gary the absolutely immoral, ungodly, unrighteous, wretch.

[Immanuel Can]

Rights are moral claims. They predate legalisms. They aren't crafted by men. They cannot be repealed or amended. They can only be recognized or violated (more accurately: the one with the moral claim can be recognized or violated).

Concisely put. That is what "unalienable" implies, when we talk about "unalienable" rights.

Exactly so.

A moral claim is a right?

A "right" is one type of "moral claim." The larger category is "moral claim," of which "right" is one kind. There are other kinds of "moral claims."

Yet when I make a moral claim it is merely an illusion, or a figment, according to you.

It's an illusion according to Atheism. Not according to me.

[Immanuel Can]

What is more interesting, and about which one must think even more, is that today, in our culture, all types of people and their behaviors, desires, choices and longings have been given validity and turned into rights that they are justified in claiming.

That is true. There is no inherent "right to not be offended," or "right to the choice of murdering children," or "right to a living wage." These are attempts to make of rights a kind of trump-card that one can simply slap down on the conversational 'table' and instantly demand compliance.

But Locke's original rationale does not include these things, and, in fact, cannot justify such things. Locke's package of basic rights includes only life, liberty and property, and with them a right of conscience. Beyond that, in terms of claiming rights, Locke himself was unable to show anything was warranted.

So in this sense, though it was not as immediate as you state that it should have been, 'children' of all sorts are now claiming the rights to do, think, act and portray themselves as they desire to. On what basis then do you think they do that?

That's exactly the same question I was asking you. The only difference is you've now substituted inauthentic "children's rights" for "voting rights" or "right to inclusion."

But the problem turns out to be the same, essentially. In order to make any rights claim against his/her society, the claimant has to be thinking that rights precede the society in question. The call for "rights," then, is a universal, moral claim, not a product of society itself.

To say that it is not *evident* why women would believe that they should have the same rights as the men around them is a stupid thing to say.

Then you need to read some Feminist literature on that. Feminism has long held that it is possible for a woman to "internalize her oppression," (their expression, not mine), by coming to believe that what her society does to her is legitimate and necessary. In fact, Feminist thought argues that deliverance from "internalized oppression" is particularly difficult, and requires a standpoint from outside the given society to be prioritized morally over the standpoint from within the society.

In our culture certainly people claim rights simply on the basis that rights are declared to be available to them. If a heterosexual couple has the *right* to marry then it follows (logically, and also eventually) that man should have the right to marry a man, a woman a woman, or any particular combination. "If they have rights, why can't I have rights, too?"

That slippery-slope argument ends up in some dark places. Before you offer it, you'd better show you know exactly where it stops, and what makes it reasonable to stop it there. It implies that a man can legitimately "marry" anything, at any time, any way he pleases.

[Harbal]

A moral claim is a right?

A "right" is one type of "moral claim." The larger category is "moral claim," of which "right" is one kind. There are other kinds of "moral claims."

What do you mean by "right"? Do you just mean something that is good, proper or correct; or do you mean an authority granted entitlement?

Yet when I make a moral claim it is merely an illusion, or a figment, according to you.

It's an illusion according to Atheism. Not according to me.

It seems one -or both- of us has been labouring under a misunderstanding. I have never made a moral claim predicated on "Atheism".

[Immanuel Can]

A moral claim is a right?

A "right" is one type of "moral claim." The larger category is "moral claim," of which "right" is one kind. There are other kinds of "moral claims."

What do you mean by "right"? Do you just mean something that is good, proper or correct; or do you mean an authority granted entitlement?

I am referring more to the second than the first. When a woman says "I have a right to vote," she's not saying merely, "It's good, proper and correct for me to vote"; she saying, "I have authority for a legitimate claim to be granted to vote, and you're not letting me do it."

Yet when I make a moral claim it is merely an illusion, or a figment, according to you.

It's an illusion according to Atheism. Not according to me.

It seems one -or both- of us has been labouring under a misunderstanding. I have never made a moral claim predicated on "Atheism".

Then you are an agnostic, not an Atheist? If so, what misled me was perhaps your comments about God. Or are you saying you now don't believe in "moral claims"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

Conversation -- honest, productive conversation -- is largely impossible with you. And so tedious.

But the problem turns out to be the same, essentially. In order to make any rights claim against his/her society, the claimant has to be thinking that rights precede the society in question. The call for "rights," then, is a universal, moral claim, not a product of society itself.

No, I disagree. Primitive societies (tribes in S America, Africa, etc.) that do not have gods who bring forward moral codes and imperatives, give evidence of having *moral codes* and sense about what is ethical and good.

When they make a claim -- say are offended that someone stole from them -- the sense of being offended, that a right was violated, is directly and beyond doubt a *product of society itself*.

You confuse categories because you are a Christian religious zealot. You may refer to Locke if you wish but you will only do so it you are sure that Locke concords with *God*. And for you, in your mind, the rights we have in the Occident, if indeed we have them, are assigned and upheld by God alone. Now God, no moral rules.

You are stuck within the limits imposed by your categories. I am not confined in those categories. So I can think very differently, and I do think very differently, about these things.

Women at that time made claims for various reasons, and they justified those claim in different ways. It is as I have said and not as you insist that it be.

[Harbal]

What do you mean by "right"? Do you just mean something that is good, proper or correct; or do you mean an authority granted entitlement?

I am referring more to the second than the first. When a woman says "I have a right to vote," she's not saying merely, "It's good, proper and correct for me to vote"; she saying, "I have authority for a legitimate claim to be granted to vote, and you're not letting me do it."

If she says, " I have a right to vote", she may well mean that she has a God given right, but she might mean that she has a right according to principles of justice and fairness. But did she say she had a right to vote, or did she say she wanted to have that right?

If you insist she already thought she had a right to vote, in what way do you account for her having it?

It seems one -or both- of us has been labouring under a misunderstanding. I have never made a moral claim predicated on "Atheism".

Then you are an agnostic, not an Atheist? If so, what misled me was perhaps your comments about God. Or are you saying you now don't believe in "moral claims"?

I doesn't make any difference whether I'm an atheist, agnostic, or a religious fanatic, because when I am talking about morality, I am simply doing it without any reference to God, which I could equally do even if I believed in God.

I do believe in moral claims in as much as I believe moral claims exist, but I do not believe they have any absolute authority behind them. Any moral issue on which I have an opinion will necessarily put me in a particular position in regard to it, and it is from that position that any moral assertions I make come. I may say that something is morally wrong, but what I really mean is that it is wrong in my opinion. If I feel strongly about a particular moral issue, I may behave as though I am expressing an objective truth, and it may even feel like I am, but I know that I am not.

[Immanuel Can]

But the problem turns out to be the same, essentially. In order to make any rights claim against his/her society, the claimant has to be thinking that rights precede the society in question. The call for "rights," then, is a universal, moral claim, not a product of society itself.

No, I disagree. Primitive societies (tribes in S America, Africa, etc.) that do not have gods who bring forward moral codes and imperatives, give evidence of having *moral codes* and sense about what is ethical and good.

Any society can enforce compliance with its rules. That's not a wondrous observation.

What the dependence on force does not have -- and what the suffragettes needed -- was a code that transcends their local imperatives. Because if the local imperatives say, "Women are not competent to vote," as indeed they did say, then it's not the society that's the source of the moral imperative, "Woman have a right to vote."

[Harbal]

What the dependence on force does not have -- and what the suffragettes needed -- was a code that transcends their local imperatives. Because if the local imperatives say, "Women are not competent to vote," as indeed they did say, then it's not the society that's the source of the moral imperative, "Woman have a right to vote."

Why do you not think that the women themselves were the source of that moral imperitive?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What the dependence on force does not have -- and what the suffragettes needed -- was a code that transcends their local imperatives. Because if the local imperatives say, "Women are not competent to vote," as indeed they did say, then it's not the society that's the source of the moral imperative, "Woman have a right to vote."

Your stuck on this and in this. Take it to the point that matters most to you: only God has granted rights. And if any person in this world claims a right, believes they have a right, it is because God created them and *owns* them (so to speak); owns this Reality, and owns Destiny.

Many said *Women are not competent to vote*, but many others did not believe that. True, the former view was likely prevalent in men's minds, and also perhaps in some women, but times changed, perceptions changed, and the social code changed.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by "right"? Do you just mean something that is good, proper or correct; or do you mean an authority granted entitlement?

I am referring more to the second than the first. When a woman says "I have a right to vote," she's not saying merely, "It's good, proper and correct for me to vote"; she saying, "I have authority for a legitimate claim to be granted to vote, and you're not letting me do it."

If she says, " I have a right to vote", she may well mean that she has a God given right, but she might mean that she has a right according to principles of justice and fairness.

Let's say it's the latter, then.

To what conception of "justice and fairness" could she be referring? Because there are many.

If you insist she already thought she had a right to vote, in what way do you account for her having it?

Well, the right to vote, qua voting, is certainly not a basic human right. People in non-democratic societies don't get it, of course, because voting is an element only of democratic, egalitarian societies.

But where will we ground democratic egalitarianism, which would then tell us that women should have a right to vote? I think that's more obvious.

The right to be treated justly and with equal regard as a human being is grounded in the narrative of man and woman made in the image of God. So I would account for it based on the truthfulness of that Theistic narrative.

What narrative would Atheism or skepticism use, if it were trying to explain or make sense of their claim?

It seems one -or both- of us has been labouring under a misunderstanding. I have never made a moral claim predicated on "Atheism".

Then you are an agnostic, not an Atheist? If so, what misled me was perhaps your comments about God. Or are you saying you now don't believe in "moral claims"?

I doesn't make any difference whether I'm an atheist, agnostic, or a religious fanatic, because when I am talking about morality, I am simply doing it without any reference to God, which I could equally do even if I believed in God.

Well, one can always just "talk" in any way one pleases, of course: one can say things that are true, and things that are untrue, and things that are consistent, and things that are not consistent, and things that are real, and things that are imaginary. But what one cannot do it talk logically without regard for the logical basis on which one is talking.

I'm choosing to speak logically about Atheism. So if Atheism, or more generally, God-skepticism, thinks it can talk logically about rights, I am asking to see it's logical line of explanation.

I do believe in moral claims in as much as I believe moral claims exist, but I do not believe they have any absolute authority behind them.

Well, then, back to the suffragettes: how to they manage to assert a moral claim if it has no authority behind it? Or do we simply point out to those women, "Your claim is backed by nothing. In our society, we don't grant you the right to vote. We think men should vote, and you should not. So settle down, honey, and back to the kitchen with you; because politics are simply too serious for your fluffy little brains."

Those are, in fact, the sorts of rebuffs the suffragettes received. What is the proper reply to that, speaking on the basis of "no absolute authority"?

[Immanuel Can]

What the dependence on force does not have -- and what the suffragettes needed -- was a code that transcends their local imperatives. Because if the local imperatives say, "Women are not competent to vote," as indeed they did say, then it's not the society that's the source of the moral imperative, "Woman have a right to vote."

Your stuck on this and in this.

I'm not the one who's "stuck." I understand it completely. I'm making my best effort to make the question clear to somebody who, it seems, is determined simply to find a way to evade it.

Many said *Women are not competent to vote*, but many others did not believe that.

But as you say, most did. Even most women did. They had, the Feminists tell us, "internalized their oppression," maybe; but the suffragettes were in the minority, and they needed a way to persuade people.

What could you do to help a cause like theirs? Would you tell them, "Settle down, girly: there's nothing behind your belief that you are owed a vote?" How would that help them make their case?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What could you do to help a cause like theirs? Would you tell them, "Settle down, girly: there's nothing behind your belief that you are owed a vote?" How would that help them make their case?

Oh that is another question completely. First, I disagree with your basic predicates (those that underpin your view of this "rights" issue). I do recognize, or let's say I respect, metaphysical categories, and metaphysics has a role, and certain the religious beliefs of a culture (even if false) have a role. So there's that.

I am not sure if it is wise to empower women in all the ways that women have been empowered. I mean, I am not sure if it is metaphysically sound, and, if there os a *God* I am not sure if that defined and conceived God would, necessarily, support the rights and roles that we have created for women.

Other moral system, other ethical systems, look at these issues and decide them through different moral lenses. I do not give (without thought) moral ascendency to our Occidental machinations -- necessarily.

I would *tell women* that they should, they must, operate in harmony with men and men's interests. I would tell them that negation of the role of woman (in all traditional senses) is not necessarily the best choice to make. But even to say such a think involves layers and layers of imposed or assumed values.

Note that I am not an activist in this regard. I actually put my wife through law school because it seemed like the proper thing to do. It is a complex and a thorny question, by and large.

[Immanuel Can]

I do recognize, or let's say I respect, metaphysical categories, and metaphysics has a role, and certain the religious beliefs of a culture (even if false) have a role. So there's that.

False beliefs, of course, are just false beliefs. However, other false beliefs that are not Atheism have this advantage over Atheism.

If, for example, the cosmological claims of Hinduism were true, then things like karmic "ethics," and a "right" of sorts, the right to be left to one's "dharma" would follow logically.

Nothing follows regarding ethics or rights from the claim, "There is no God." So Atheism's a moral gelding.

I am not sure if it is wise to empower women in all the ways that women have been empowered.

We'd have the same issue if we picked a different example: take the right of the freedom marchers to integration with "white" society. Take the right of peasant farmers to self-determination. It doesn't matter what the particular issue is: if anybody can assert their claim for "rights" that their society has not already granted to them, then they have to be drawing on something higher than the social to get such "rights."

[Gary Childress]

What could you do to help a cause like theirs? Would you tell them, "Settle down, girly: there's nothing behind your belief that you are owed a vote?" How would that help them make their case?

Oh that is another question completely. First, I disagree with your basic predicates (those that underpin your view of this "rights" issue). I do recognize, or let's say I respect, metaphysical categories, and metaphysics has a role, and certain the religious beliefs of a culture (even if false) have a role. So there's that.

I am not sure if it is wise to empower women in all the ways that women have been empowered. I mean, I am not sure if it is metaphysically sound, and, if there os a *God* I am not sure if that defined and conceived God would, necessarily, support the rights and roles that we have created for women.

Other moral system, other ethical systems, look at these issues and decide them through different moral lenses. I do not give (without thought) moral ascendency to our Occidental machinations -- necessarily.

I would *tell women* that they should, they must, operate in harmony with men and men's interests. I would tell them that negation of the role of woman (in all traditional senses) is not necessarily the best choice to make. But even to say such a think involves layers and layers of imposed or assumed values.

Note that I am not an activist in this regard. I actually put my wife through law school because it seemed like the proper thing to do. It is a complex and a thorny question, by and large.

I think that's basically the age old problem. How do we men get our way with women. Their empowerment is the loss of every man who wishes to tame a woman's will and desires and our empowerment is the loss of every woman who wants to do the same to us. Enter religious institutions.

The world is a pit, a rat race. Just opt out. Give up. Let the world and its creator perpetuate this dismal swamp for as long as the creator's conscience can handle it. Keep playing the creator's game and you will just dig a hole for yourself, 6 feet is generally the desired depth. And a hole is a hole is a hole. Both of us will end up the same regardless of what we do or how we live our lives.

When humans are gone the last vestiges of "justice", "fairness", "kindness" and "love" will disappear from this world forever (as well as their opposites). We tried but the world as designed is a complete write off. Let the rocks and microbes beat each other up.

My advice. Following it is 100% optional. It's every living being for itself. Or do us all a favor and kill me first. It's probably my only chance to make any kind of positive contribution in this dungeon.