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
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: January 31st, 2022, 2:16 pm
GE Morton wrote: January 30th, 2022, 7:44 pm
Gertie wrote: January 29th, 2022, 8:21 pm
Locke and Jefferson saw it differently, and the patina of ''sacred'' or ''natural'' implies their views are unchallengeable by dint of religion, or reasoning from nature.
Oooh, don't lump those together. Reasoning from natural facts and from religion are two different things.
By my view, all morality rooted in our nature as sentient beings. I simply regard some things as inalienable rights (unalterable by governments) on the basis of how necessary they are to wellbeing.
Things to which one has natural and common rights are necessary to well-being, but being necessary for well-being is not sufficient to establish a right to something. One only has rights to things one has gained rightfully (hence the term).
Then you're still left with the problem of justifying 'rightful'.

You can justify 'rightful' by reference to this or that aspect (take your pick) of being human being instilled by God.

Or by reasoning from this or that (take your pick) aspect of nature.
"Rightful" here means, "consistent with the Axiom." More specifically, in contexts in which "rights" are invoked, it means, "Acquired without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else." Being (specifically) human is not necessary; they apply to any creature who values things and whose well-being consists in securing and retaining the things one values (whatever those may be). Since humans qualify per those criteria, those properties are part of "human nature." God, of course, has nothing to do with it.

Saying that someone has a right to something is not the same as saying it would be good that he have it, which would be the case regardless of the social circumstances. It would be good for Crusoe, alone on his island. Rather, rights place constraints upon the ways one may go about securing the things one desires and values in a social context, where the actions of one agent to improve his well-being may reduce the well-being of someone else. Since the Axiom is universal, such actions are ruled out.
Or... you can think afresh, reassess the notion of 'rightful' and say it's the special qualiative nature of sentience which is the appropriate foundation for right and wrong, and reason from there that ensuring basic well-being is therefore 'rightful'.
It is indeed rightful. But only as long as the improvement in the well-being of one agent does not come at the cost of a reduction in that of another agent. Improvements have to be "Pareto-efficient."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 2:48 pm
That is correct. Natural law reasoning had become debatable in the time of Jefferson and even Locke, but theistic grounding still held strong. It is no accident that they grounded their views in theism. Morton's claim that it is an dispensable accident has no textual basis in the thinkers themselves, and therefore is not supportable.
Natural law theories, in various forms, long predate Aquinas's formalization; they reflect obvious aspects of observable human nature and the nature of human societies. The "God-given" interpretation was an accretion added by Christian theologians who expropriated the concept. Neither Locke nor Jefferson "grounded" their understanding of natural rights in any theistic dogmas; their understanding of them was that ancient understanding, already well-developed in English common law.

Virtually every legal and explicit moral code known to history recognizes the "natural" rights, even if that term was not known or used, including the earliest known, the Code of Ur-Nammu, written 2000 years before the advent of Christianity. They are rooted in the right of self-defense. Any code which prohibits murder (as they all do) implicitly recognizes the right to life; every code which prohibits theft (as they all do) implicitly recognizes the right to property; any code which prohibits kidnapping, imprisoning, or enslaving "free persons" recognizes a right to liberty. (In most cultures, of course, certain people, usually "outlanders" or "barbarians," could indeed be enslaved).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

Religious "justifications" for natural rights are Johnny-come-Latelies and are superfluous.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Leontiskos »

GE Morton wrote: January 31st, 2022, 3:38 pmReligious "justifications" for natural rights are Johnny-come-Latelies and are superfluous.
You seem to be confusing your own theories with Locke's and Jefferson's, absent any textual warrant for that move. If you think there is textual evidence that Locke or Jefferson thought God to be accidental to their theories, feel free to present it.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 4:12 pm
You seem to be confusing your own theories with Locke's and Jefferson's, absent any textual warrant for that move. If you think there is textual evidence that Locke or Jefferson thought God to be accidental to their theories, feel free to present it.
I made no claim that "Locke or Jefferson thought God to be accidental to their theories." I said God was unnecessary to their theories, and that they didn't define or defend rights on that basis. They argued for them on rational, pragmatic grounds, namely, that unless those rights were widely acknowledged and respected, society would not be possible; it would devolve to Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes.

"The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions . . ." (Locke).

https://lonang.com/library/reference/lo ... t/loc-202/
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Leontiskos »

GE Morton wrote: January 31st, 2022, 9:11 pm
Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 4:12 pm
You seem to be confusing your own theories with Locke's and Jefferson's, absent any textual warrant for that move. If you think there is textual evidence that Locke or Jefferson thought God to be accidental to their theories, feel free to present it.
I made no claim that "Locke or Jefferson thought God to be accidental to their theories." I said God was unnecessary to their theories, and that they didn't define or defend rights on that basis. They argued for them on rational, pragmatic grounds, namely, that unless those rights were widely acknowledged and respected, society would not be possible; it would devolve to Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes.

"The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions . . ." (Locke).

https://lonang.com/library/reference/lo ... t/loc-202/
It is instructive that when faced with my claim that you have artificially and anachronistically removed Locke's God from Locke's philosophy, you give a selective quote from one of Locke's treatises while dubiously omitting the remainder of his sentence. In the remainder that you conveniently omitted Locke affirms the divine basis for his claim, namely:

". . . for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure."

Such an attempt hardly counts as textual evidence for your claim. Indeed, the quote you selected counts as textual evidence against your claim.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 9:31 pm
It is instructive that when faced with my claim that you have artificially and anachronistically removed Locke's God from Locke's philosophy, you give a selective quote from one of Locke's treatises while dubiously omitting the remainder of his sentence. In the remainder that you conveniently omitted Locke affirms the divine basis for his claim, namely:

". . . for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure."

Such an attempt hardly counts as textual evidence for your claim. Indeed, the quote you selected counts as textual evidence against your claim.
That is NOT "the basis" for Locke's claim. It is a supplemental argument directed to those who require religious justifications and explanations for everything. The basis for his argument was given in the portion I quoted: "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it . . ."

Reason leads to that natural law, not revelation. It is a law which precedes and transcends religion.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Leontiskos »

GE Morton wrote: January 31st, 2022, 11:22 pmThat is NOT "the basis" for Locke's claim. It is a supplemental argument directed to those who require religious justifications and explanations for everything. The basis for his argument was given in the portion I quoted: "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it . . ."

Reason leads to that natural law, not revelation. It is a law which precedes and transcends religion.
Again, what you are doing here is eisegesis. There is nothing in the text to support your interpretation. You are distorting the text by injecting your own ideas.

First, the proximate claim that you quoted requires the entirety of Locke's sentence, not just the first half. This makes sense, for Locke would be a pretty shoddy philosopher and writer if 50% of his sentence is "unnecessary" and "superfluous." Locke knows that equality and independence does not ground a non-harm principle. Something more is needed, and he provides the necessary "something more" by appealing to God.

Further, having just quoted at length the English priest and theologian, Richard Hooker's work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, the entirety of paragraph §6 is rooted in Locke's creator-premise. In §6 Locke is arguing for limits on liberty, and one of the central anchors of his argument is that man "has not liberty to destroy himself." Locke concludes this paragraph by claiming that if you must preserve and not destroy yourself, then you also have a duty, in equality, to preserve and not destroy others. Locke establishes the prohibition on suicide by appealing to nothing other than the fact that we have an "infinitely wise Maker" who has not alienated his right over the life of his workmanship. Far from being unnecessary or superfluous, the propositions about God are the kernel and key that the chiastic structure of §6 orbits around.

Once one reads §6 in an objective way they find that its rationale is altogether foreign to Morton's moral system, despite some superficial resemblance.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Gertie »

GE



Then you're still left with the problem of justifying 'rightful'.

You can justify 'rightful' by reference to this or that aspect (take your pick) of being human being instilled by God.

Or by reasoning from this or that (take your pick) aspect of nature.
"Rightful" here means, "consistent with the Axiom." More specifically, in contexts in which "rights" are invoked, it means, "Acquired without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else."
That's a definition not a justification of rights or their rightfulness. Your definition. Wiki on Rights -

''Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.....

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.''

My point is that if we don't share Jefferson or Locke's normative justification (by their notion of God, or by their choice of aspects of nature they reason from, or whatever else), then our subsequent notion of rights won't be bound by theirs, which are ultimately grounded in their different moral foundations.

So if we are saying it is the special qualiative nature of conscious experience which grounds notions of right and wrong, oughts and subsequent rights, then our justification for rights might be different to theirs, and we might reasonably derive different rights to them.
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 1st, 2022, 11:21 am
"Rightful" here means, "consistent with the Axiom." More specifically, in contexts in which "rights" are invoked, it means, "Acquired without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else."
That's a definition not a justification of rights or their rightfulness. Your definition.
Yes, that was a definition of "rightful." You need a definition of "rightful" if you're using it to justify rights. The dictionary definitions for "rightful" are not helpful, since the definiens are just as problematic as the definiendum:

"1. Right or proper; just.
"2. Having a just or proper claim: Return this dog to its rightful owner."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... q=Rightful

The definitions of "righteous," which could be used instead, are a bit better:

"1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
"2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment. See Synonyms at moral

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... =righteous

Those at least acknowledge that "righteous" denotes a moral property. Nearly all moralities and legal codes prohibit inflicting losses or injuries on other moral agents ("Thou shall not murder," Thou shalt not steal," etc.). Indeed, preventing such acts is their primary raison d'etre. So someone's claim to something he had stolen would not be righteous (or rightful), and thus he would have no right to it.
Wiki on Rights - . . .

''Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.....

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.''
Those "disagreements" derive largely from confusion of legal rights with natural rights, and, beginning in the early 20th century, from efforts of leftists to re-define that term in order to remove it as an impediment to their political agenda (Newspeak). There was no disagreement about its meaning in classical liberalism or in the common law (though there can always be disagreement as to whether a particular rights claim is valid).
My point is that if we don't share Jefferson or Locke's normative justification (by their notion of God, or by their choice of aspects of nature they reason from, or whatever else), then our subsequent notion of rights won't be bound by theirs, which are ultimately grounded in their different moral foundations.
Well, if you propose to use "rights" to denote claims which entail inflicting losses or injuries on others then you're just indulging in Newspeak. And, of course, you then have the burden of morally justifying those harmful acts (most such attempts invoke utilitarianism, which has its own problems).
So if we are saying it is the special qualiative nature of conscious experience which grounds notions of right and wrong, oughts and subsequent rights, then our justification for rights might be different to theirs, and we might reasonably derive different rights to them.
Oh, I don't think "the special qualitative nature of conscious experience" grounds notions of right and wrong. For one thing, that is much too vague to serve as a grounding for morality (or anything else). Enabling sentient creatures to maximize their welfare while interacting in a social setting is the aim, the "grounding," of morality.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 11:51 pm
First, the proximate claim that you quoted requires the entirety of Locke's sentence, not just the first half. This makes sense, for Locke would be a pretty shoddy philosopher and writer if 50% of his sentence is "unnecessary" and "superfluous." Locke knows that equality and independence does not ground a non-harm principle.
Oh, but they do. If everyone is free to inflict harms at will on anyone else, then society is non-viable. On the other hand, if only some are able, or permitted, to inflict harms on others, then equality is violated.
Further, having just quoted at length the English priest and theologian, Richard Hooker's work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, the entirety of paragraph §6 is rooted in Locke's creator-premise. In §6 Locke is arguing for limits on liberty, and one of the central anchors of his argument is that man "has not liberty to destroy himself." Locke concludes this paragraph by claiming that if you must preserve and not destroy yourself, then you also have a duty, in equality, to preserve and not destroy others. Locke establishes the prohibition on suicide by appealing to nothing other than the fact that we have an "infinitely wise Maker" who has not alienated his right over the life of his workmanship. Far from being unnecessary or superfluous, the propositions about God are the kernel and key that the chiastic structure of §6 orbits around.
Locke states his case in Ch. 2 #4:

"4. To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state
of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of
Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is
reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously
born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on
him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty."

Having earlier denied that "the lord and master" had "set one above the other," the obvious common species-hood, similarities of "advantages of Nature" and "faculties," and the absence of any external earthly power over them, are sufficient ("nothing more evident") to establish liberty and equality. No religious assumptions are required.

The religious argument, as I said, is superfluous, and, indeed, the claim that "man has not the liberty to destroy himself" is patently false. He certainly does have that liberty, which is perfectly consistent with the "perfect freedom" Locke claimed was "perfectly evident."

Most Western philosophers of Locke's era sought to provide some religious rationale or underpinning for their arguments, or to buttress them. They can be disregarded as extraneous to thrust of the argument and inessential to its validity.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Leontiskos »

GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm
Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 11:51 pm
First, the proximate claim that you quoted requires the entirety of Locke's sentence, not just the first half. This makes sense, for Locke would be a pretty shoddy philosopher and writer if 50% of his sentence is "unnecessary" and "superfluous." Locke knows that equality and independence does not ground a non-harm principle.
Oh, but they do. If everyone is free to inflict harms at will on anyone else, then society is non-viable.
This is not Locke's argument. (It is yours)
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm
Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 11:51 pm
First, the proximate claim that you quoted requires the entirety of Locke's sentence, not just the first half. This makes sense, for Locke would be a pretty shoddy philosopher and writer if 50% of his sentence is "unnecessary" and "superfluous." Locke knows that equality and independence does not ground a non-harm principle.
On the other hand, if only some are able, or permitted, to inflict harms on others, then equality is violated.
You haven't managed to contradict my claim, and therefore your argument does not establish the conclusion you desire. It is true that if only some are permitted to inflict harm then equality is violated. Nevertheless, this is a red herring, for the question is whether equality and independence ground a non-harm principle. We could easily say that everyone is equal, independent, and permitted to harm others. As long as everyone is permitted to harm, equality and independence are not sacrificed.

Incidentally, your misreading of Locke would apparently make you unable to perceive the difference between Locke and Hobbes, which is a significant difference.
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm
Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 11:51 pmFurther, having just quoted at length the English priest and theologian, Richard Hooker's work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, the entirety of paragraph §6 is rooted in Locke's creator-premise. In §6 Locke is arguing for limits on liberty, and one of the central anchors of his argument is that man "has not liberty to destroy himself." Locke concludes this paragraph by claiming that if you must preserve and not destroy yourself, then you also have a duty, in equality, to preserve and not destroy others. Locke establishes the prohibition on suicide by appealing to nothing other than the fact that we have an "infinitely wise Maker" who has not alienated his right over the life of his workmanship. Far from being unnecessary or superfluous, the propositions about God are the kernel and key that the chiastic structure of §6 orbits around.
Locke states his case in Ch. 2 #4:

[...]

Having earlier denied that "the lord and master" had "set one above the other," the obvious common species-hood, similarities of "advantages of Nature" and "faculties," and the absence of any external earthly power over them, are sufficient ("nothing more evident") to establish liberty and equality. No religious assumptions are required.
Again, equality doesn't justify non-harm. That's why Locke introduces the prohibition on suicide by religious argument, as I explained in my last post.
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pmThe religious argument, as I said, is superfluous...
You're begging the question.
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm...and, indeed, the claim that "man has not the liberty to destroy himself" is patently false. He certainly does have that liberty, which is perfectly consistent with the "perfect freedom" Locke claimed was "perfectly evident."
Heh. Here you are explicitly disagreeing with Locke and proving my point that "[Locke's] rationale is altogether foreign to Morton's moral system, despite some superficial resemblance."

Here is what Locke says in the very paragraph that you first quoted:

----------

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself..."

(Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Book 2, Chapter 2, § 6, emphasis mine)

----------
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pmMost Western philosophers of Locke's era sought to provide some religious rationale or underpinning for their arguments, or to buttress them. They can be disregarded as extraneous to thrust of the argument and inessential to its validity.
You defend your own system well, but you do not read other philosophers objectively. You end up pretending that their theory is the same as yours and throwing out all evidence to the contrary. It's a form of eisegesis.

You also managed to completely avoid answering the central argument of my last post: the proper exegesis of §6, the paragraph that you yourself decided to quote.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by GE Morton »

Leontiskos wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 1:52 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm Oh, but they do. If everyone is free to inflict harms at will on anyone else, then society is non-viable.
This is not Locke's argument. (It is yours)
It was Hobbes' argument, and is self-evident. Locke had no need to repeat it.
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm
On the other hand, if only some are able, or permitted, to inflict harms on others, then equality is violated.
It is true that if only some are permitted to inflict harm then equality is violated. Nevertheless, this is a red herring, for the question is whether equality and independence ground a non-harm principle. We could easily say that everyone is equal, independent, and permitted to harm others. As long as everyone is permitted to harm, equality and independence are not sacrificed.
True. But then society is non-viable. Viability and equality are only simultaneously realized if NO ONE is permitted to inflict unjustified harms on others (harms may be justified when inflicted to prevent harms about to be inflicted by another moral agent, or to redress harms previously inflicted by him).
Incidentally, your misreading of Locke would apparently make you unable to perceive the difference between Locke and Hobbes, which is a significant difference.
Yes, there are differences. But that is not one of them.
Again, equality doesn't justify non-harm.
Unless you're prepared to argue that a society in which everyone is able and permitted to inflict harms on anyone else at will is viable, i.e., you reject the non-viability premise, then yes, equality does entail a no-harm principle.
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm...and, indeed, the claim that "man has not the liberty to destroy himself" is patently false. He certainly does have that liberty, which is perfectly consistent with the "perfect freedom" Locke claimed was "perfectly evident."
Heh. Here you are explicitly disagreeing with Locke and proving my point that "[Locke's] rationale is altogether foreign to Morton's moral system, despite some superficial resemblance."
Yes, I'm disagreeing with Locke on that point. That people in a "state of nature" are indeed free to "destroy themselves" is obvious, unless we assume suicides were impossible, or at least unheard of, in Locke's time. It also contradicts what Locke himself said earlier, i.e., " . . . we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature . . ."

That disagreement is inconsequential, however, because that part of Locke's argument is inconsequential.
You also managed to completely avoid answering the central argument of my last post: the proper exegesis of §6, the paragraph that you yourself decided to quote.
I quoted one sentence from #6, a statement also made earlier, in #4 (above). Accepting and defending a particular statement doesn't commit one defending other statements which may be made in the same paragraph.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Gertie »

GE
So if we are saying it is the special qualiative nature of conscious experience which grounds notions of right and wrong, oughts and subsequent rights, then our justification for rights might be different to theirs, and we might reasonably derive different rights to them.
Oh, I don't think "the special qualitative nature of conscious experience" grounds notions of right and wrong. For one thing, that is much too vague to serve as a grounding for morality (or anything else). Enabling sentient creatures to maximize their welfare while interacting in a social setting is the aim, the "grounding," of morality.
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.

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. So that should be the basis from which we start thinking about rules, laws, mores, rights, etc. Regardless of what Locke or Mary next door thinks, lets put that aside for now, and see where our foundation takes us. 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.

We can say it's wrong to kill or steal for our reasons, not Locke's. 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.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Leontiskos »

GE Morton wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 2:47 pm
Leontiskos wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 1:52 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm Oh, but they do. If everyone is free to inflict harms at will on anyone else, then society is non-viable.
This is not Locke's argument. (It is yours)
It was Hobbes' argument, and is self-evident. Locke had no need to repeat it.
No, it is not Locke's. You keep putting things in Locke's mouth. Locke's grounding prohibition on suicide sustains his non-harm principle. We don't need to appeal to mysteriously invisible Hobbesian premises. We can just read what Locke wrote. That's how you understand philosophers, by reading what they write.
GE Morton wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 2:47 pm
Leontiskos wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 1:52 pmIt is true that if only some are permitted to inflict harm then equality is violated. Nevertheless, this is a red herring, for the question is whether equality and independence ground a non-harm principle. We could easily say that everyone is equal, independent, and permitted to harm others. As long as everyone is permitted to harm, equality and independence are not sacrificed.
True. But then society is non-viable.
If he had left it at that he would not have grounds for a non-harm principle. Fortunately he didn't leave it at that.
GE Morton wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 2:47 pm
Leontiskos wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 1:52 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 1st, 2022, 3:37 pm...and, indeed, the claim that "man has not the liberty to destroy himself" is patently false. He certainly does have that liberty, which is perfectly consistent with the "perfect freedom" Locke claimed was "perfectly evident."
Heh. Here you are explicitly disagreeing with Locke and proving my point that "[Locke's] rationale is altogether foreign to Morton's moral system, despite some superficial resemblance."
Yes, I'm disagreeing with Locke on that point. That people in a "state of nature" are indeed free to "destroy themselves" is obvious, unless we assume suicides were impossible, or at least unheard of, in Locke's time. It also contradicts what Locke himself said earlier, i.e., " . . . we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature . . ."
I think you're confusing a number of notions. You are confusing what is natural with what is secular. When Locke speaks of Nature he is not excluding God. Second, you tend to confuse natural theology with revealed theology. Locke is not appealing to revealed texts or institutional forms of religion, but he is appealing to a long tradition of natural theology. These are two concrete eisegetical premises you are employing.
GE Morton wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 2:47 pmThat disagreement is inconsequential, however, because that part of Locke's argument is inconsequential.
Right: Anything Locke says which contradicts your own pre-conceived interpretation is inconsequential. That's not valid reasoning.

I wonder if you are trapped in an outdated Straussian interpretation of Locke? Here is a recent article on why the academic literature no longer takes Strauss' portrait seriously:

Conservativism’s John Locke Debate: Strauss Utilitarian, Christian Humanist, or Just Confused?
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights

Post by Leontiskos »

Oops, forgot this:
GE Morton wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 2:47 pmI quoted one sentence from #6, a statement also made earlier, in #4 (above). Accepting and defending a particular statement doesn't commit one defending other statements which may be made in the same paragraph.
Apparently it doesn't even commit you to defending words that may appear in the same sentence, no? Because no, you didn't quote a sentence, you quoted exactly half of a sentence. The other half directly invalidated the point you were attempting to make.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
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