The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by ernestm »

Gertie wrote: January 29th, 2022, 7:49 am
ernestm wrote: January 28th, 2022, 5:28 pm I'm sorry, but that just sounds petulant to me. I like going to libraries and national parks.
Petulant? OK.

I don't like having my right to have an abortion decided by some bloke who had particular religious beliefs I don't share. In fact I don't like my access to healthcare or libraries and parks dependant on that either.
I fail to understand what you like or not has anything to do with Locke's or Jefferson's position. To cite my own example, I do not like to have had heart attacks and be constrained to a wheelchair. That does not influence the truth that this is the philosophical basis of our nation. Like it or not, it is. Alot of people don't like it, but that's what it is. Liking it or not doesn't change the fact that it is, lol, that's how a child argues about things, not a philosopher.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Gertie wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 8:13 pm
OK, the point I'm making is that there's no such thing as wellbeing without sentience, because conscious experience has this special qualiative ''what it is like'' nature.
Oh, I agree. But that fact alone won't give us the answers to any moral questions.
So while Locke or Jefferson or Mary next door might have their own notions of what might appropriately distinguish an Is from an Ought, morally justify actions or rules, you and I agree that it's the wellbeing of sentient creatures.
Agree, though I'd argue that Locke and Jefferson would also agree (though perhaps limiting their concern to the well-being of humans).
How do we work towards maximising, or improving, the welfare of sentient beings.

Now we might take the approach that we prioritise enabling each individual to maximise their own wellbeing, as in your formulation, or we might take a more communal approach - which is where you and I differ. But either way, I don't see why we should be bound by traditional framings of morality which aren't appropriate to our wellbeing framing. We can ditch God as our justification, because it's not appropriate to our foundation. We can look afresh at the nature of the world, through the lens of our moral justification lying in wellbeing. And note for example other species are sentient too. We don't have to stick to morality based definitions and justifications which aren't appropriate to our foundation.
Agree with most of that, but we can't take a "communal approach" if that implies that a community has interests of its own which are distinct from those of its individual members and which can override those interests. That would be a logical error, since communities are nothing but the individuals who constitute them, and the only well-being discernible or measurable is the well-being of those individuals, which must be determined separately for each of them. But perhaps you meant something else by "communal approach." ??
We can say it's wrong to kill or steal for our reasons, not Locke's.
What other reasons would there be, other than promoting/preserving well-being, for either us or Locke?
We can re-conceptualise rights in a way applicable to our moral foundation, not someone else's. Just like Locke and Jefferson themselves did. We can change the rules of baseball to fit our own wellbeing-shaped playing field. Yay.
Well, we can certainly propose moral rules not considered by Locke or Jefferson, as long as we advance some coherent moral argument for them. But if "re-conceptualizing" rights means discarding the constraints they impose upon inflicting loss or injury on others, then we're just indulging in Newspeak. We're co-opting a term with a well-understood meaning and deploying it with a contradictory meaning, in the hope that some of its connotations will carry over, in uncritical minds, to the new meaning. That is sophistry.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: February 6th, 2022, 4:16 pm

Agree with most of that, but we can't take a "communal approach" if that implies that a community has interests of its own which are distinct from those of its individual members and which can override those interests. That would be a logical error, since communities are nothing but the individuals who constitute them, and the only well-being discernible or measurable is the well-being of those individuals, which must be determined separately for each of them. But perhaps you meant something else by "communal approach." ??

Communities can indeed (it seems to me) have interests distinct from those of individual members. What about eusocial insects? Behaviors of individuals often make sense ONLY in terms of the benefits to "the community". Of course the community consists of individuals. But by VIEWING it as an organic thing, with its own (metaphorical) interests, we may be able to better understand social life, and enhance our ability to promote the well-being of individuals. I know you probably think humans differ from ants and bees in terms of "moral agency". But that's just a modern, non-religious way of echoing the religious arguments about the primacy of man, made in God's own image. (Does God have "moral agency"? Or can He only do good?)
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Sculptor1 »

Not sure why all the American religionists are in such a funk about abortion.

God is a far more effective abortionist; miscarrying far more foetuses than modern medicine. Most foetuses he aborts within the first couple of days. God aborts as many as 70% of all pregnancies without the mothers permission.

A human abortionist is so much more moral than God.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Ecurb »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 11th, 2022, 1:29 pm Not sure why all the American religionists are in such a funk about abortion.

God is a far more effective abortionist; miscarrying far more foetuses than modern medicine. Most foetuses he aborts within the first couple of days. God aborts as many as 70% of all pregnancies without the mothers permission.

A human abortionist is so much more moral than God.
I've never understood these atheistic critiques of God. He not only allows fetuses to die -- He allows everyone to die. Horrors! He killed all those first-born Egyptians. So what? He kills everyone else, too. He (if He exists) created a world in which everyone dies. If death is so bad, isn't Lazurus to be pitied? He had to die twice. I'm sure even the most naive evangelicals are aware of this.

Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".

As God asked Job: "
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?.
As far as the Supreme Court's pending decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it highlights a problem with judicial activism. Roe v. Wade was always a highly debatable decision from a legal standpoint, however much I may support it politically. The problem is that becasue its legal grounding was always dubious, it is rife for being overturned. Had the Supremes never decided Roe v. Wade, I'm guessing that legislation would have legalized abortion long ago. Who knows what will happen now?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: May 11th, 2022, 2:55 pm
As far as the Supreme Court's pending decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it highlights a problem with judicial activism. Roe v. Wade was always a highly debatable decision from a legal standpoint, however much I may support it politically. The problem is that becasue its legal grounding was always dubious, it is rife for being overturned. Had the Supremes never decided Roe v. Wade, I'm guessing that legislation would have legalized abortion long ago. Who knows what will happen now?
Justice Blackmun's decision in Roe v. Wade has certainly been controversial, questioned not only by religious and intuitive/visceral "pro-lifers," but also by constitutional scholars who, like you (and me), generally support women's rights to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. But I think that decision, though reached via some bold and subtle --- i.e., not obvious --- reasoning, is constitutionally and rationally defensible.

The two main scholarly objections to that reasoning are 1) the source and scope of the "right to privacy," and 2) the convoluted analysis of fetal development, and which restrictions on abortion can be imposed at different points during the course of that development. Here is a summary of those objections (just published today):

https://reason.com/2022/05/10/there-is- ... -reasoning

In the article Jacob Sullum points out that the Court in Roe is vague in pinpointing the textual source of the "right to privacy," which the Court first articulated in the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which struck down laws restricting sale and use of birth control devices:

"Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, 'Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.' Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

So that ambiguity in the source of the right to privacy descends directly from Griswold. In Roe, Blackmun saw no need to explore that source further, as long as the existence of that right was acknowledged. The substantive question is, Can any of the sources cited --- 4th Amendment, 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment --- support that right? I think they all do. The 9th Amendment is central here. It reads, "The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage or deny others retained by the people." That Amendment expressly acknowledges unenumerated rights, and thus implies that the Court will be called upon from time to time to identify and secure those rights in law. The Court in Griswold held that the right of privacy is implicit in the 4th and 14th Amendments, a finding few questioned at the time. That decision is precisely of the sort contemplated in the 9th Amendment.

So then the issue of the scope of that right to privacy arises: If a woman's decision as to whether to become pregnant is protected by the right of privacy, is her decision whether to continue a pregnancy not also protected? If not, why not?

The pro-lifers would claim, of course, that once an ovum is fertilized it becomes a "person," "endowed with a soul." An unfertilized egg and an unmated sperm cell are not persons --- a woman who sheds an unfertilized ovum every month is not a murderess --- but once the egg is fertilized the situation changes. Or so some claim. So the Court in Roe was forced to address that question. Blackmun did so by considering how "person" has been construed when used elsewhere in the Constitution, and also how abortion has been treated historically in common law countries.

The same issues that Blackmun addressed in Roe will still have to be addressed by the Court now; they can't avoid them. I doubt they can find answers any more defensible than his.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

I apparently overlooked this back in February. Just noticed today, with the new posts.
Ecurb wrote: February 6th, 2022, 5:57 pm Communities can indeed (it seems to me) have interests distinct from those of individual members. What about eusocial insects? Behaviors of individuals often make sense ONLY in terms of the benefits to "the community". Of course the community consists of individuals. But by VIEWING it as an organic thing, with its own (metaphorical) interests, we may be able to better understand social life, and enhance our ability to promote the well-being of individuals. I know you probably think humans differ from ants and bees in terms of "moral agency". But that's just a modern, non-religious way of echoing the religious arguments about the primacy of man, made in God's own image. (Does God have "moral agency"? Or can He only do good?)
Humans and human societies differ from eusocial insects in more fundamental ways than moral agency. Their DNA forces a particular structure upon them and the societies they form, which they have no power to change. Humans are not biologically bound to any particular social form, or to any at all.

The "interests" of eusocial insects are commanded by their genes (if we wish to call innate behavioral programming "interests").
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Sculptor1 »

Ecurb wrote: May 11th, 2022, 2:55 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: May 11th, 2022, 1:29 pm Not sure why all the American religionists are in such a funk about abortion.

God is a far more effective abortionist; miscarrying far more foetuses than modern medicine. Most foetuses he aborts within the first couple of days. God aborts as many as 70% of all pregnancies without the mothers permission.

A human abortionist is so much more moral than God.
I've never understood these atheistic critiques of God. He not only allows fetuses to die -- He allows everyone to die. Horrors! He killed all those first-born Egyptians. So what? He kills everyone else, too. He (if He exists) created a world in which everyone dies. If death is so bad, isn't Lazurus to be pitied? He had to die twice. I'm sure even the most naive evangelicals are aware of this.
And we can learn and improve by his example, by only killing those foetuses that are unwanted.
Of maybe we should embrace god for what he is - a murdering psychopath?
But one thing is clear; there is no basis for forbearance due to his example.
Maybe you can understand that?

Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".
How is this a counter argument?

As God asked Job: "
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?.
As far as the Supreme Court's pending decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it highlights a problem with judicial activism. Roe v. Wade was always a highly debatable decision from a legal standpoint, however much I may support it politically. The problem is that becasue its legal grounding was always dubious, it is rife for being overturned. Had the Supremes never decided Roe v. Wade, I'm guessing that legislation would have legalized abortion long ago. Who knows what will happen now?
Hopefully sense will prevail and safe and timely abortions will continue, because the alternative is; Dangerous back street abortions; a new generation of unwanted babies with mothers that are not capable of the economic support they need to bring them up; having to carry the spawn of their rapist; and to give birth to the children that are going to have a higher percentage of psychopathy and criminality.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Sculptor1 »

ernestm wrote: January 27th, 2022, 5:48 pm I am so bold to share a link to my own blog on this article because it stems from a discussion with President Obama in 2015 on some Lockean theory concerning natural rights of which he as unaware, despite being a professor of constitutional law. Half a dozen constitutional lawyers have reviewed prior drafts of it, as well as several state supreme court judges. However on sharing it publicly, there was a lot of confusion about facts they knew which it did not state. So I rewrote it extensively, until the only comments I got on it were that it must be wrong because Jefferson was a bad person.

https://yofiel.com/gnosticism/rights2.php

As the article does state, this is not taught in the USA public school system because of its theistic basis. So while the theory is quite well known in philosophy schools in Europe, where I learned it, it's unlikely you will have encountered it before.
This is so obviously problematic, especially the theistic basis for this. There are two reasons for this, and one is obviously there is no hint of natural rights as such in the Bible, but mostly Locke was keen on providing his rights somewhat partially.
Rights are all very well, unless you are Catholic.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Ecurb »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 12th, 2022, 4:25 am
And we can learn and improve by his example, by only killing those foetuses that are unwanted.
Of maybe we should embrace god for what he is - a murdering psychopath?
But one thing is clear; there is no basis for forbearance due to his example.
Maybe you can understand that?

Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".
How is this a counter argument?

[Ad hominem attack removed]

To us humans, "What dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause." So says Hamlet, at least. To God, however, this is not the case. "Who can know the mind of God?" suggests that when people die, God may already know that they are leaving the troubled tides of the mortal world, and entering eternal bliss. Far from being a "murderous psychopath", God may be a gentle and comforting redeemer.

This in no way excuses murderers, who are specifically commanded not to commit murder by God Himself. "He was going to die anyway," is not a good excuse for murder, despite Sculptor's seeming acquiesance. That's because we humans (even those who are "born again") aren't actually privvy to the "Mind of God". It is not for us to "play God" and decide how and when people will die. Insulting God and Religion is rude; ignorance of basic Theology is silly. Combining the two disparages neither God nor religion.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: May 11th, 2022, 9:49 pm
Justice Blackmun's decision in Roe v. Wade has certainly been controversial, questioned not only by religious and intuitive/visceral "pro-lifers," but also by constitutional scholars who, like you (and me), generally support women's rights to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. But I think that decision, though reached via some bold and subtle --- i.e., not obvious --- reasoning, is constitutionally and rationally defensible.

The two main scholarly objections to that reasoning are 1) the source and scope of the "right to privacy," and 2) the convoluted analysis of fetal development, and which restrictions on abortion can be imposed at different points during the course of that development. Here is a summary of those objections (just published today)\......


The same issues that Blackmun addressed in Roe will still have to be addressed by the Court now; they can't avoid them. I doubt they can find answers any more defensible than his.
I'm not a legal scholar. My reasoning would be: "Laws are created to protect members of society. A fetus (at least until viablity) is not a member of society. Therefore the freedom of women -- who are members of society -- trumps any legal protections that a fetus may have." I don't know, however, whether this reasoning is supported by legal precedent or common law.

Thanks for the recap, though. Still, "privacy" seems to me less compelling than "freedom".
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: May 12th, 2022, 10:06 am
I'm not a legal scholar. My reasoning would be: "Laws are created to protect members of society. A fetus (at least until viablity) is not a member of society. Therefore the freedom of women -- who are members of society -- trumps any legal protections that a fetus may have." I don't know, however, whether this reasoning is supported by legal precedent or common law.

Thanks for the recap, though. Still, "privacy" seems to me less compelling than "freedom".
They are the same thing. The apparent difference arises because "private" and "privacy" have two uses and implications: the terms connote, on the one hand, "secret, out of public view," and on the other, "personal, individual, not public or communal." E.g., private property is property belonging to a specific person or persons, not to "the public," but it is not secret or out of public view. Similarly, a private decision is one a particular person is entitled to make, but is not necessarily secret. The constitutional right to privacy contemplates the "personal" interpretation, not the "secret" interpretation.

And the former is the same as "freedom" (personal freedom).
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Sculptor1 »

Ecurb wrote: May 12th, 2022, 10:00 am
Sculptor1 wrote: May 12th, 2022, 4:25 am
And we can learn and improve by his example, by only killing those foetuses that are unwanted.
Of maybe we should embrace god for what he is - a murdering psychopath?
But one thing is clear; there is no basis for forbearance due to his example.
Maybe you can understand that?

Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".
How is this a counter argument?

[Ad hominem attack removed]

To us humans, "What dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause." So says Hamlet, at least. To God, however, this is not the case. "Who can know the mind of God?" suggests that when people die, God may already know that they are leaving the troubled tides of the mortal world, and entering eternal bliss. Far from being a "murderous psychopath", God may be a gentle and comforting redeemer.

This in no way excuses murderers, who are specifically commanded not to commit murder by God Himself. "He was going to die anyway," is not a good excuse for murder, despite Sculptor's seeming acquiesance. That's because we humans (even those who are "born again") aren't actually privvy to the "Mind of God". It is not for us to "play God" and decide how and when people will die. Insulting God and Religion is rude; ignorance of basic Theology is silly. Combining the two disparages neither God nor religion.
You have an idiosyncratic opinion uncommon amongst natural human societies.
If we are seriously to talk about "natural right", then we have to address anthropology; Shakespeare might touch many hearts, but his morality is firmly located in medieval England.
You say insulting God is silly and rude. But since there is no such thing it is more silly to defend this mythical being, and rude to try to silence others from doing so.
Religion has no need of disparagement since it is wholly absurd in its own terms, being a small portion of human existence, and only a temporary and declining mirage of opinion, ever changing, and hopefully soon to be set aside for more mature considerations of how to run a society.
Once more I am woken to the horrors of Theology and religion where I learned that a Christian girl was murdered and burnt by a mob of Muslim students.
I suppose for her a critique of theology was more than "silly", but I am not going to be dissuaded from the truth by you being offended by it.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Ecurb »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 13th, 2022, 6:04 am

You have an idiosyncratic opinion uncommon amongst natural human societies.
If we are seriously to talk about "natural right", then we have to address anthropology; Shakespeare might touch many hearts, but his morality is firmly located in medieval England.
You say insulting God is silly and rude. But since there is no such thing it is more silly to defend this mythical being, and rude to try to silence others from doing so.
Religion has no need of disparagement since it is wholly absurd in its own terms, being a small portion of human existence, and only a temporary and declining mirage of opinion, ever changing, and hopefully soon to be set aside for more mature considerations of how to run a society.
Once more I am woken to the horrors of Theology and religion where I learned that a Christian girl was murdered and burnt by a mob of Muslim students.
I suppose for her a critique of theology was more than "silly", but I am not going to be dissuaded from the truth by you being offended by it.
Let's look at it point by point:
You have an idiosyncratic opinion uncommon amongst natural human societies.
If we are seriously to talk about "natural right", then we have to address anthropology; Shakespeare might touch many hearts, but his morality is firmly located in medieval England.
If my opinion is "idiosyncratic", it is by definition "uncommon". But what are those "natural human societies" to which Sculptor refers? All human societies are culturally constituted, and "culture" is (acc. to some definitions) "artificial". Also, why do we "have to address anthropology"? Perhaps Sculptor means we have to examine the anthropological record, but if he does, why be so coy? Just say "examine" instead of "address". Sculptor continues:
You say insulting God is silly and rude. But since there is no such thing it is more silly to defend this mythical being, and rude to try to silence others from doing so.
Is there "no such thing" as God, or "no such thing" as insulting God, or no such thing as insulting God (being) silly and rude? Sculptor doesn't say, but his sentence suggests the latter two possibilities. Then Sculptor clearly states (translating the sentence into plain English): "It is rude to try to silence others from defend(ing) this mythical being." Huh? Sculptor is either insulting himself or writing an unintelligible sentence! Sculptor continues:
Religion has no need of disparagement since it is wholly absurd in its own terms, being a small portion of human existence, and only a temporary and declining mirage of opinion, ever changing, and hopefully soon to be set aside for more mature considerations of how to run a society.
If religion has "no need of disparagement" (sic), why does Sculptor bother disparaging it? He is contradicting himself. Sculptor then claims religion is "wholly absurd in its own terms". Since theologians have endlessly pontificated on the internal logic of religion, this is clearly incorrect. Perhaps Sculptor means that religion is absurd from other points of view: the scientific or the rational, for example. But if so, why doesn't he say so, instead of saying the exact opposite? Besides, Sculptor's litany of criticisms could more correctly be applied to a scientific world view. Religion resists change; science is "temporary" and "ever changing".

I haven't read the story of the Christian girl's murder. Obviously, many horrible things are done in the name of religion, as in the name of Communism, Democracy, Capitalism, and (yes) science.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: May 11th, 2022, 11:18 pm I apparently overlooked this back in February. Just noticed today, with the new posts.
Ecurb wrote: February 6th, 2022, 5:57 pm Communities can indeed (it seems to me) have interests distinct from those of individual members. What about eusocial insects? Behaviors of individuals often make sense ONLY in terms of the benefits to "the community". Of course the community consists of individuals. But by VIEWING it as an organic thing, with its own (metaphorical) interests, we may be able to better understand social life, and enhance our ability to promote the well-being of individuals. I know you probably think humans differ from ants and bees in terms of "moral agency". But that's just a modern, non-religious way of echoing the religious arguments about the primacy of man, made in God's own image. (Does God have "moral agency"? Or can He only do good?)
Humans and human societies differ from eusocial insects in more fundamental ways than moral agency. Their DNA forces a particular structure upon them and the societies they form, which they have no power to change. Humans are not biologically bound to any particular social form, or to any at all.

The "interests" of eusocial insects are commanded by their genes (if we wish to call innate behavioral programming "interests").
For Hobbes and Locke, "natural rights' meant "God-given rights" (correct me if I'm wrong, you're the expert on Hobbes and Locke). Eusocial insects aside, I think the divinity of man, created in God's image, persists in an atheistic age. For you, it is called "moral agency". If we stop differentiating between humans and other animals, perhaps we can see that any natural rights that exist for humans may also exist for other animals. Many animals are clearly "moral agents" (although on a different level from humans).

I'm not sure DNA "forces" anything. All behaviors result from a combination of nature and nurture; from genetic and environmental influences. This is true for humans and for other animals. If we step on an ant, its DNA won't force it to do anything but die.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021