Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 06-21-2009, 08:46 PM

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

Your premise is based on a specific and demonstrably false definition of the term 'right,' which seems to be a peculiarity of the American outlook. You adopt the idea that a right is something intrinsic to the individual, only to disprove that very idea. Yet this is quite clearly untrue, which makes disproving it a bit unoriginal at best.

A right is a human philosophical construct. It is by it's very nature artificial. This doesn't make it any less real, but only speaks to the origin of it. It's not an organic thing, but rather one that is defined and enforced by the people.

For example, I cannot say that freedom of expression is an inalienable universal right. This is patently and obviously false, as there are large portions of the Earth's populations who are not granted this right. I may believe that it should be universal and inalienable, but believing that does not make it so. If we accept this, then we must naturally take as a given that a right is not something that exists independently, but rather something that must be granted.

I cannot follow the logic of where you go from there, though. You seem to equate the artificial nature of a right with insubstantiality. There's no logical basis for this -- most of the world around us is artificial in nature. A society by it's very nature is artifice, and exists based on a set of arbitrary rules decided on by (usually) the people within it as being the best set to govern said society. These rules often take common themes, namely that things like theft, murder or unjustified use of force are Wrong, and that things like freedom of travel or expression are Good. The American outlook takes it a step further and, in my opinion goes a step too far; it seems to be an American idea that because these ideas are widely accepted, they must be fundamental and intrinsic. This skips over the idea that they may be artificial but still Good and Right, and leads to things like this thread.

Your final conclusion is where we seem to really depart from reality. Again you equate the artificial nature of capitalism with insubstantiality, and dismiss it as playacting. I'm unable to comprehend how this is possible, except to assume that you truly believe this fallacy you've constructed. Capitalism is no more or less real than socialism, if we take these two terms within the context of their widely accepted polar definitions, and neither one is particularly true or natural. We can apply the physical concept of entropy to this idea, and come up with something approximating what I believe to be an accurate depiction. The 'natural state of society,' in so far as such a thing exists, is the one with the maximum amount of disorder -- if we were going to put a name to it, I suppose that name would be anarchy, although the term has connotations that I'm not really looking to explore here. The interesting thing about this is that the natural state of society is contrary to the natural state of humans -- humans are social creatures, and social groupings require organization and hierarchy to thrive. These things take effort. Energy must be expended in order to counteract entropy. Thus, the conclusion we may draw is that the natural state of society, when combined with the natural state of humanity, leads to instability and change. Artificial constructs must arise as a result of this combination, and since 'society' is a human construct to begin with and cannot exist independently of humanity, the only thing we can say about it is that instability is at the core of it and anything else (not just capitalism) is simply convention.

06-21-2009, 08:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Your premise is based on a specific and demonstrably false definition of the term 'right,' which seems to be a peculiarity of the American outlook. You adopt the idea that a right is something intrinsic to the individual, only to disprove that very idea. Yet this is quite clearly untrue, which makes disproving it a bit unoriginal at best. A right is a human philosophical construct. It is by it's very nature artificial. This doesn't make it any less real, but only speaks to the origin of it. It's not an organic thing, but rather one that is defined and enforced by the people. For example, I cannot say that freedom of expression is an inalienable universal right. This is patently and obviously false, as there are large portions of the Earth's populations who are not granted this right. I may believe that it should be universal and inalienable, but believing that does not make it so. If we accept this, then we must naturally take as a given that a right is not something that exists independently, but rather something that must be granted. I cannot follow the logic of where you go from there, though. You seem to equate the artificial nature of a right with insubstantiality. There's no logical basis for this -- most of the world around us is artificial in nature. A society by it's very nature is artifice, and exists based on a set of arbitrary rules decided on by (usually) the people within it as being the best set to govern said society. These rules often take common themes, namely that things like theft, murder or unjustified use of force are Wrong, and that things like freedom of travel or expression are Good. The American outlook takes it a step further and, in my opinion goes a step too far; it seems to be an American idea that because these ideas are widely accepted, they must be fundamental and intrinsic. This skips over the idea that they may be artificial but still Good and Right, and leads to things like this thread. Your final conclusion is where we seem to really depart from reality. Again you equate the artificial nature of capitalism with insubstantiality, and dismiss it as playacting. I'm unable to comprehend how this is possible, except to assume that you truly believe this fallacy you've constructed. Capitalism is no more or less real than socialism, if we take these two terms within the context of their widely accepted polar definitions, and neither one is particularly true or natural. We can apply the physical concept of entropy to this idea, and come up with something approximating what I believe to be an accurate depiction. The 'natural state of society,' in so far as such a thing exists, is the one with the maximum amount of disorder -- if we were going to put a name to it, I suppose that name would be anarchy, although the term has connotations that I'm not really looking to explore here. The interesting thing about this is that the natural state of society is contrary to the natural state of humans -- humans are social creatures, and social groupings require organization and hierarchy to thrive. These things take effort. Energy must be expended in order to counteract entropy. Thus, the conclusion we may draw is that the natural state of society, when combined with the natural state of humanity, leads to instability and change. Artificial constructs must arise as a result of this combination, and since 'society' is a human construct to begin with and cannot exist independently of humanity, the only thing we can say about it is that instability is at the core of it and anything else (not just capitalism) is simply convention. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame