Rights From Wrongs

Quote: aceofspades

Yeah it all starts with a supposition - "There is a god" then "God told us what was right and wrong in the 10 commandments" then "All rules/laws/rights stem from that"

Just as troubling would be starting with a supposition - "There is no God".

Let's get back to the book. He is looking for a way to find an objective ground for rights and I'm very interested if he can do so without saying they are man made or they come from nature or natural law. Isn't his whole point that objective human rights are a good and neccessary thing and that he can explain them with a new theory that doesn't need an external source such as God, law, or nature? I hope myself and the author are not the only ones here that agree that human rights need some type of grounding outside of being man made.

I have read the introduction and first two chapters. I am pretty impressed so far.
I think he does a great job (as he always does) covering a lot of history and philosophy into very readable segments.

I think it is clear that rights do not come from a God (or Gods), mostly because there is zero evidence of one existing, and even if one did, there are so many religions and sects within religions who disagree on what such an entity would prescribe. The examples of religions routinely not caring about the rights of minority groups and terror attacks are good examples covered in the book.

Also, the first chapter's defense of minority over majority rule is important, Republics need to defend the rights of minorities without mob rule. The idea that rights are undemocratic is an important one, and I am glad he started the book on this note. Positive vs negative rights are all important to understand.

So far there is nothing that I disagree with (though I presumed as much when I read the summary), starting the Nature (3) chapter now.

Really my only potential disagreement (not really a disagreement) is I am still not sure the "orgins" of rights is all that critical for secular ethics, but we shall see where he goes with it. Though I do understand the need to point out to some where rights do not come from.

I haven't bought the book, interesting that your book club is full of atheists/agnostics it seems

interesting that atheists are interested in this topic 'period', it may be true that the obvious possible problems of right and wrong derived from men only bothers them a lot. Bob's response to that comment will be 'bah, humbug' yet that he jumps at the chance to talk about this is undeniable

Don't want to pick this up as I'm in the middle of rereading "Crime and Punishment" after having read it maybe 45 years ago. There are similar themes in C&P, does the author mention it?

Quote: odiousgambit

I haven't bought the book, interesting that your book club is full of atheists/agnostics it seems

Um, the book we're reading was written
by a self admitted atheist/agnostic. Why
did he feel it was important to write it.

Quote:

interesting that atheists are interested in this topic 'period',

It is? Atheists are interested in many
things, Why should we not be interested
in where modern society evolved from.
You make no sense.

Quote: FrGamble

I hope myself and the author are not the only ones here that agree that human rights need some type of grounding outside of being man made.

And where would that be, exactly.
You've shown again and again
that god cannot be proven to exist,
so where would this mystical
'grounding' come from. I believe
that was the author's whole point
in writing the book, to show human
rights come from human experience
and nowhere else.

So far the author is right on the
money. Chapter 3, human rights
come directly from the natural
selfishness of humans. We are
after all, just advanced animals.
And all animals are selfish in
the extreme. Human rights
grew out of us recognizing our
own animal selfishness and
doing something to curtail
it. Has nothing whatever to
do with an outside force. How
could it, there is no outside
force.

Quote: Evenbob

And where would that be, exactly.
You've shown again and again
that god cannot be proven to exist,
so where would this mystical
'grounding' come from. I believe
that was the author's whole point
in writing the book, to show human
rights come from human experience
and nowhere else.

Actually I think I've shown again and again that God can be proven to exist, but that is not the point of this thread. Let's not bash each other's heads into that brick wall again.

His whole point seems to me to be that human rights have some grounding similar to natural law or from God. He is honest enough to recognize the problem that arises when you deny God as the source of right and wrong, hence the book with the clever title. You either have to ground morality is something bigger than us, such as his theory of human experience or you have to let go of the entire conception of right and wrong, which NO ONE wants to do or can do.

Quote: FrGamble

Actually I think I've shown again and again that God can be proven to exist,

Send a telegram to Dershowitz, he
needs to know this immediately.
lol

Quote:

His whole point seems to me to be that human rights have some grounding similar to natural law or from God. .

Are you actually reading the book?
The whole 3rd chapter is about
nature not being responsible. The
first line of chapter 4 is 'rights do
not come from god or from nature."
Yet you say the 'whole point' of the
book is that they do? Please read it
and quit guessing.

I am reading the book, please read my posts a little closer. He is looking to ground rights in something like nature or God, while rejecting both of these theories.

Quote: FrGamble

I He is looking to ground rights in something like nature or God, while rejecting both of these theories.

He's discussing them and then rejecting
them. He makes it very clear rights come
from us, not nature or some god.