Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 11:21 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:19 am Human rights do not exist as something that exists in and of themselves. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, which makes humanity the creator of a world it wishes to live in. All things that we find meaningful, we have given them that meaning. Even pack animals like wolves have wolf rights; it is fundamentally a matter of self-interest and compassion for your fellows. The creation of meaning/s is a biological function that enables us to move more safely and survive in the world. The physical world has no meaning/s in and of itself; it is meaningless in the absence of biological consciousness. To say that human rights are not necessary is simply foolish. We need society as a tool for survival. Without the compassion of our fellows and a structured moral system, society would cease to be a shelter from the storm of an uncaring physical world. We would not survive. Society, culture, systems of morality, and institutions are our biological extensions, our creations, expressions of the desires, wants, and needs of human nature. They have meaning because they are meaningful to us, plain and simple. We create physical things, and the meanings and uses for them to serve our self-interests for survival and well-being. Not realizing this is to live your life in a state of naive realism, you believe all things are just as they seem.

Biology does not exist in and of itself.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 9:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 11:21 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:19 am Human rights do not exist as something that exists in and of themselves. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, which makes humanity the creator of a world it wishes to live in. All things that we find meaningful, we have given them that meaning. Even pack animals like wolves have wolf rights; it is fundamentally a matter of self-interest and compassion for your fellows. The creation of meaning/s is a biological function that enables us to move more safely and survive in the world. The physical world has no meaning/s in and of itself; it is meaningless in the absence of biological consciousness. To say that human rights are not necessary is simply foolish. We need society as a tool for survival. Without the compassion of our fellows and a structured moral system, society would cease to be a shelter from the storm of an uncaring physical world. We would not survive. Society, culture, systems of morality, and institutions are our biological extensions, our creations, expressions of the desires, wants, and needs of human nature. They have meaning because they are meaningful to us, plain and simple. We create physical things, and the meanings and uses for them to serve our self-interests for survival and well-being. Not realizing this is to live your life in a state of naive realism, you believe all things are just as they seem.

Biology does not exist in and of itself.

I guess what Popeye intends by "biology" is nature, in particular human nature.

Biology defined as study of living systems is a human construct, useful but not the measure of all else. Of course we realise that biology undefined by parameters flows into biochemistry, chemistry, physics, dietetics, human geography, economics, and so forth.

Without parameters the study of living systems can even account for the insight that allows H. Sapiens to see himself as part of the Gestalt. Such insight is a basic cause of mythic narratives and so to religions.

Moral philosophy, which includes philosophy of rights, is an art not a natural science.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 5:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 9:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 11:21 pm

Biology does not exist in and of itself.

I guess what Popeye intends by "biology" is nature, in particular human nature.
Biology is defined as study of living systems is a human construct, useful but not the measure of all else. Of course we realise that biology, undefined by parameters, flows into biochemistry, chemistry, physics, dietetics, human geography, economics, and so forth.
Without parameters, the study of living systems can even account for the insight that allows H. Sapiens to see himself as part of the Gestalt. Such insight is a basic cause of mythic narratives and so too religions.
Moral philosophy, which includes philosophy of rights, is an art, not a natural science.

Biology is what you are as part of a carbon-based family of organisms, and it is out of this that you react to the outer world. Human rights have their origin in identifying oneself with the self of others; thus, compassion arises. It is an extended concept of the self; society is the collective self. This circle of the collective selves is unfortunately limited to in-groups and out-groups. Is spontaneous termed an art form?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 6:12 am It is not classic when there is no evidence of a fixed reality by degree of everpresent change. We only know through distinctions and distinctions require change for one thing to contrast to another.

There is no fixed truth outside of a specific context. Only specific contexts have fixed truths and when the context changes so does the fixed truth.

Absolute truth exists within a context.

Because there is exceptions human rights are not universal. There is no universal conception of human rights.

There is no fixed metaphysical principle that determines what murder is or is not.

As to empirical there is no empirical proof for morality given morality is an interpretation of the mind. You cannot scientifically prove or disprove morality, at best cause an effect. Empiricism as a pure standard is faulty by degree that the senses are interpreted thus leaving mind as a foundational point.

If no metaphysical notions are mandatory for rights, and intersubjectivity is the measure than by default rights are mere assertions of political systems for the time. There is no universal intersubjectivity and if rights are founded in intersubjectivity then inherently insubjective states clash.

I never said rights are metaphysical constants, nor did I say that they are "illusions of power". The AI is forcefully reinterpreting things I did not states.

If rights are imperfect then by default someone is condemn for them.

Kant's categorical imperative assumes self value and there is no law for what or how a person should value themselves. Value is not universal as evidenced by conflicts.

As a matter of fact values are conditioned by society and masked as "free choice" given the simple example of consumerism society where people are free to buy anything they can afford and yet advertisement conditions what people want and do not want.
..

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 6:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 6:04 am AI Wrote:

Here’s a unified Kantian case you can present, weaving together life, liberty, and conscience as categorical imperatives:

Kantian Case for Imperative Human Rights

According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

From this principle, certain human rights emerge as universal regulative standards rather than relative constructs:

Right to Life

Maxim: “Killing humans is wrong.”

If denied, the opposite maxim — “Killing is permissible” — would mean anyone may be killed at any time. Universalizing that destroys the very condition for human survival, leading to extinction.

Therefore, the right to life is a universal imperative.

Freedom from Slavery

Maxim: “Enslaving humans is wrong.”

If denied, the opposite maxim — “Enslaving is permissible” — would subject everyone, including oneself, to possible enslavement. That contradicts rational autonomy, since no one can guarantee their own freedom.

Therefore, freedom from slavery is a universal imperative.

Freedom of Conscience

Maxim: “Freedom of thought and conscience must be respected.”

If denied, the opposite maxim — “Suppressing conscience is permissible” — would mean no one could secure their own freedom of belief. That contradicts reason itself, which requires independent judgment.

Therefore, freedom of conscience is a universal imperative.

Conclusion

These rights are not metaphysical absolutes, nor illusions of power. They are regulative universals — categorical imperatives grounded in reason, survival, and dignity. While their interpretations vary, their negation leads to contradiction, oppression, or extinction. That is why life, liberty, and conscience stand as imperative rights at the foundation of any moral framework.

Vengeance can be universalized.
Not taking care of one's health can be universalized.
Stealing from other's can be universalized.
Etc.

As a matter of fact Kant's stances create a moral chaos by degree of subjectivity being the form and function of morality as "what should be universalized" is not intersubjective by nature but rather personal interpretation.

If there are no universal metaphysical notions for human rights than by degree their is no metaphysical notion for a universal categorical imperative.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 6:12 am It is not classic when there is no evidence of a fixed reality by degree of everpresent change. We only know through distinctions and distinctions require change for one thing to contrast to another.

There is no fixed truth outside of a specific context. Only specific contexts have fixed truths and when the context changes so does the fixed truth.

Absolute truth exists within a context.

Because there is exceptions human rights are not universal. There is no universal conception of human rights.

There is no fixed metaphysical principle that determines what murder is or is not.

As to empirical there is no empirical proof for morality given morality is an interpretation of the mind. You cannot scientifically prove or disprove morality, at best cause an effect. Empiricism as a pure standard is faulty by degree that the senses are interpreted thus leaving mind as a foundational point.

If no metaphysical notions are mandatory for rights, and intersubjectivity is the measure than by default rights are mere assertions of political systems for the time. There is no universal intersubjectivity and if rights are founded in intersubjectivity then inherently insubjective states clash.

I never said rights are metaphysical constants, nor did I say that they are "illusions of power". The AI is forcefully reinterpreting things I did not states.

If rights are imperfect then by default someone is condemn for them.

Kant's categorical imperative assumes self value and there is no law for what or how a person should value themselves. Value is not universal as evidenced by conflicts.

As a matter of fact values are conditioned by society and masked as "free choice" given the simple example of consumerism society where people are free to buy anything they can afford and yet advertisement conditions what people want and do not want.
..

You are so lost.
You are contradicting yourself:

Your OP is "Why Human Rights are an Illusion and Not Necessary"
Regardless of "illusions of power" you are claiming human rights are an illusion.

"As to empirical there is no empirical proof for morality given morality is an interpretation of the mind. You cannot scientifically prove or disprove morality, at best cause an effect. Empiricism as a pure standard is faulty by degree that the senses are interpreted thus leaving mind as a foundational point."
I did not claim we can scientifically prove or disprove morality.

My point is science is grounded on a specific human-based Framework and System of Emergence, reality and knowledge [FSERK]; it is the gold standard of objectivity and credibility; if not what else?

My claim is my morality-proper FSERK will have inputs from the scientific FSERK and thus has a near objectivity and credibility rating [80/100] as the scientific FSERK [95/100].
In contrast a theological FSERK will have a 5/100 rating. How this is measured? I had posted the methodology in this section.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 6:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 6:04 am AI Wrote:

Here’s a unified Kantian case you can present, weaving together life, liberty, and conscience as categorical imperatives:

Kantian Case for Imperative Human Rights

According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

From this principle, certain human rights emerge as universal regulative standards rather than relative constructs:

Right to Life

Maxim: “Killing humans is wrong.”

If denied, the opposite maxim — “Killing is permissible” — would mean anyone may be killed at any time. Universalizing that destroys the very condition for human survival, leading to extinction.

Therefore, the right to life is a universal imperative.

Freedom from Slavery

Maxim: “Enslaving humans is wrong.”

If denied, the opposite maxim — “Enslaving is permissible” — would subject everyone, including oneself, to possible enslavement. That contradicts rational autonomy, since no one can guarantee their own freedom.

Therefore, freedom from slavery is a universal imperative.

Freedom of Conscience

Maxim: “Freedom of thought and conscience must be respected.”

If denied, the opposite maxim — “Suppressing conscience is permissible” — would mean no one could secure their own freedom of belief. That contradicts reason itself, which requires independent judgment.

Therefore, freedom of conscience is a universal imperative.

Conclusion

These rights are not metaphysical absolutes, nor illusions of power. They are regulative universals — categorical imperatives grounded in reason, survival, and dignity. While their interpretations vary, their negation leads to contradiction, oppression, or extinction. That is why life, liberty, and conscience stand as imperative rights at the foundation of any moral framework.

Vengeance can be universalized.
Not taking care of one's health can be universalized.
Stealing from other's can be universalized.
Etc.

Why is you evidence for this?

In contrast, the will-to-live is universal [empirically as evident].
This is translated to be a regulative 'right to live' i.e. no killing of humans by humans.

As a matter of fact Kant's stances create a moral chaos by degree of subjectivity being the form and function of morality as "what should be universalized" is not intersubjective by nature but rather personal interpretation.

If there are no universal metaphysical notions for human rights than by degree their is no metaphysical notion for a universal categorical imperative.

There is no ontological universal categorical imperative.

It is because the categorical imperative can easily be inferred from scientific evidence that we adopt it as the 'North Pole'* for moral guidance.
*There is no ontologically fixed point for the North Pole except the one that is accepted by human-based scientific geography based on intersubjective consensus. The point is this fictitious [illusory] 'North Pole' has utility value for travelers and serves other human purposes positively.

It is the same with Kant's categorical imperative [& universal human rights], which is fictitious and illusory but it has positive survival value to humanity as a moral 'compass point'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 4:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 6:12 am It is not classic when there is no evidence of a fixed reality by degree of everpresent change. We only know through distinctions and distinctions require change for one thing to contrast to another.

There is no fixed truth outside of a specific context. Only specific contexts have fixed truths and when the context changes so does the fixed truth.

Absolute truth exists within a context.

Because there is exceptions human rights are not universal. There is no universal conception of human rights.

There is no fixed metaphysical principle that determines what murder is or is not.

As to empirical there is no empirical proof for morality given morality is an interpretation of the mind. You cannot scientifically prove or disprove morality, at best cause an effect. Empiricism as a pure standard is faulty by degree that the senses are interpreted thus leaving mind as a foundational point.

If no metaphysical notions are mandatory for rights, and intersubjectivity is the measure than by default rights are mere assertions of political systems for the time. There is no universal intersubjectivity and if rights are founded in intersubjectivity then inherently insubjective states clash.

I never said rights are metaphysical constants, nor did I say that they are "illusions of power". The AI is forcefully reinterpreting things I did not states.

If rights are imperfect then by default someone is condemn for them.

Kant's categorical imperative assumes self value and there is no law for what or how a person should value themselves. Value is not universal as evidenced by conflicts.

As a matter of fact values are conditioned by society and masked as "free choice" given the simple example of consumerism society where people are free to buy anything they can afford and yet advertisement conditions what people want and do not want.
..

You are so lost.
You are contradicting yourself:

Your OP is "Why Human Rights are an Illusion and Not Necessary"
Regardless of "illusions of power" you are claiming human rights are an illusion.

"As to empirical there is no empirical proof for morality given morality is an interpretation of the mind. You cannot scientifically prove or disprove morality, at best cause an effect. Empiricism as a pure standard is faulty by degree that the senses are interpreted thus leaving mind as a foundational point."
I did not claim we can scientifically prove or disprove morality.

My point is science is grounded on a specific human-based Framework and System of Emergence, reality and knowledge [FSERK]; it is the gold standard of objectivity and credibility; if not what else?

My claim is my morality-proper FSERK will have inputs from the scientific FSERK and thus has a near objectivity and credibility rating [80/100] as the scientific FSERK [95/100].
In contrast a theological FSERK will have a 5/100 rating. How this is measured? I had posted the methodology in this section.

There is no contradiction. If morality is not based on metaphysical absolutes, and is purely an intersubjective construct of interpretation, than it is not only not fixed but is a partial truth. Partial truths are illusions as an illusion is an absence of truth, and absence that a partial truth observes.

Your categorical imperatives are an interpretation that contradicts itself as they are purely subjective and clash with other subjective traits. Scientific facts are contextual, they are subject to the tests being interpretations of what we deem as real. Scientific truths are not absolute, they are interpretative.

You provide no fixed foundations.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 4:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:08 am
You are so lost.
You are contradicting yourself:

Your OP is "Why Human Rights are an Illusion and Not Necessary"
Regardless of "illusions of power" you are claiming human rights are an illusion.

"As to empirical there is no empirical proof for morality given morality is an interpretation of the mind. You cannot scientifically prove or disprove morality, at best cause an effect. Empiricism as a pure standard is faulty by degree that the senses are interpreted thus leaving mind as a foundational point."
I did not claim we can scientifically prove or disprove morality.

My point is science is grounded on a specific human-based Framework and System of Emergence, reality and knowledge [FSERK]; it is the gold standard of objectivity and credibility; if not what else?

My claim is my morality-proper FSERK will have inputs from the scientific FSERK and thus has a near objectivity and credibility rating [80/100] as the scientific FSERK [95/100].
In contrast a theological FSERK will have a 5/100 rating. How this is measured? I had posted the methodology in this section.

There is no contradiction. If morality is not based on metaphysical absolutes, and is purely an intersubjective construct of interpretation, than it is not only not fixed but is a partial truth. Partial truths are illusions as an illusion is an absence of truth, and absence that a partial truth observes.

Your categorical imperatives are an interpretation that contradicts itself as they are purely subjective and clash with other subjective traits. Scientific facts are contextual, they are subject to the tests being interpretations of what we deem as real. Scientific truths are not absolute, they are interpretative.

You provide no fixed foundations.

There is actually no such thing as partial truths.
The point is all truths are grounded on a specific human-based framework and system [FS].
The question is whether how objective and credible are FS rated, thus determining the objectivity of the truths.

Yes, scientific truths are not absolute, they are based on intersubjective consensus.
There are no better empirical truth than scientific truths.
Scientific truths are the most objective and credible.
It is either scientific truth or pseudoscience, there are not partial truth is Science.

My moral system is leveraged in majority from scientific truths.
Therefore, the moral truths I proposed are highly objective and credible relative to the scientific truths.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 4:32 am

There is no contradiction. If morality is not based on metaphysical absolutes, and is purely an intersubjective construct of interpretation, than it is not only not fixed but is a partial truth. Partial truths are illusions as an illusion is an absence of truth, and absence that a partial truth observes.

Your categorical imperatives are an interpretation that contradicts itself as they are purely subjective and clash with other subjective traits. Scientific facts are contextual, they are subject to the tests being interpretations of what we deem as real. Scientific truths are not absolute, they are interpretative.

You provide no fixed foundations.

There is actually no such thing as partial truths.
The point is all truths are grounded on a specific human-based framework and system [FS].
The question is whether how objective and credible are FS rated, thus determining the objectivity of the truths.

Yes, scientific truths are not absolute, they are based on intersubjective consensus.
There are no better empirical truth than scientific truths.
Scientific truths are the most objective and credible.
It is either scientific truth or pseudoscience, there are not partial truth is Science.

My moral system is leveraged in majority from scientific truths.
Therefore, the moral truths I proposed are highly objective and credible relative to the scientific truths.

Partial truths are truths that exist in one context but not another.

Empirical truths are mental interpretations of the physical senses.

You offer no moral truths. They have all been debunked.

What you offer is an interpretation that gives you an identity because you are afraid of the experiential abyss.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 8:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:16 am
There is actually no such thing as partial truths.
The point is all truths are grounded on a specific human-based framework and system [FS].
The question is whether how objective and credible are FS rated, thus determining the objectivity of the truths.

Yes, scientific truths are not absolute, they are based on intersubjective consensus.
There are no better empirical truth than scientific truths.
Scientific truths are the most objective and credible.
It is either scientific truth or pseudoscience, there are not partial truth is Science.

My moral system is leveraged in majority from scientific truths.
Therefore, the moral truths I proposed are highly objective and credible relative to the scientific truths.

Partial truths are truths that exist in one context but not another.

Empirical truths are mental interpretations of the physical senses.

You offer no moral truths. They have all been debunked.

What you offer is an interpretation that gives you an identity because you are afraid of the experiential abyss.

Your above are merely noises and nothing substantial.

Provide valid and sound arguments.