Self Ownership and ethics

[alexqr1]

Here is my take on secular ethics.

 

[Carl Green]

Great video as always alex.

 

 

Just a few technical notes:

 

At about 1:10ish when you're defining negative rights and positive rights, are you saying oblige?  It's tough to tell, and it's pronounced like o-bly-dge (if that makes sense)

 

Also, In the 3rd instance you wrote "his or her actions in unethical"

[alexqr1]

Thanks Carl, will try to edit from youtube.

I appreciate the feedback as always!

[dsayers]

How much effort did you put into wording everything just so? I'm usually nitpicky when it comes to language and seriously admire your specific choice of words in this video.

 

I also particularly enjoyed you pointing out that the universalization of self-ownership makes universal positive rights ethically impossible. I get the concept, but never made the connection myself. And they you upped it a notch by applying it to the common fallacious notions of right to health care and such.

 

I would be interested to see an in-depth analysis of abortion. The example you provided was reasonable, which is rare for that topic.

 

What do you think about the word "right" as opposed to the word ownership? Personally, I try to avoid the word right because of the way it's been manipulated in the consciousness of the governed. Namely that it's only ever mentioned in opposition of contention despite the word itself denoting incontestability. I've also noticed that people are more willing to allow a right to be taken away since they're propagandized into believing they are inalienable, therefore their removal will be righted by somebody else. Whereas speaking in terms of ownership, the morality is clearer and better understood.

[alexqr1]

How much effort did you put into wording everything just so? I'm usually nitpicky when it comes to language and seriously admire your specific choice of words in this video.

Thank you. I usually script to some extent what I say in my videos. Not being a native English speaker, it is a bit difficult for me without a script or at least some pointers. In this case I just sat down and started typing my ideas. I would not say it was a great effort. I think when we try to transmit ideas and debate, the objectivity of language is key. That is why in the video I make the distinction between right to live and right not to be killed which are different. People tend to say right to live when they mean right not to be killed. It is not just a different way of saying it, one is a positive right, the other is a negative right.

I also particularly enjoyed you pointing out that the universalization of self-ownership makes universal positive rights ethically impossible. I get the concept, but never made the connection myself. And they you upped it a notch by applying it to the common fallacious notions of right to health care and such.I would be interested to see an in-depth analysis of abortion. The example you provided was reasonable, which is rare for that topic.

That is not a bad idea. I will think about it more and if I come up with something that I believe may have value to others; I will post a video about abortion. 

What do you think about the word "right" as opposed to the word ownership? Personally, I try to avoid the word right because of the way it's been manipulated in the consciousness of the governed. Namely that it's only ever mentioned in opposition of contention despite the word itself denoting incontestability. I've also noticed that people are more willing to allow a right to be taken away since they're propagandized into believing they are inalienable, therefore their removal will be righted by somebody else. Whereas speaking in terms of ownership, the morality is clearer and better understood.

I understand what you are saying and it is a shame. Some words just get hijacked and made to mean something else; take for example the words capitalism, liberal and freedom. My opinion is that we need to take back those words because if we just start using others, then they will take those from us too. It is sort of a war of words. Stefan makes reference to that when he says that language is just another government program. Right and ownership have different connotations and I believe we should continue to use them and educate others about such things. The hijack of language is a real problem and if philosophers are to make any progress in the world, then that problem has to be dealt with. 

I've also noticed that people are more willing to allow a right to be taken away since they're propagandized into believing they are inalienable, therefore their removal will be righted by somebody else. Whereas speaking in terms of ownership, the morality is clearer and better understood.

This is a result of what you just mentioned, the manipulation of the word. If my right is subject to someone else changing it or taking it away then it is not a right. I guess we could talk in terms of ownership, but then ownership would be manipulated. I think us rational thinkers and seekers of truth should not back away from those attacks on language, but rather set a strong defense and alert others about the malicious misusage of words.

[dsayers]

Taking back damaged words is consistent with speaking the truth, so of course I would agree as to its necessity. However, simply using damaged words would be more of a brute force method. Using ownership consistently in the presence of somebody who has a damaged concept of "right" would take back the word in their own mind by helping them to realize that the word right as they understand it has been compromised. You wouldn't walk up to somebody who doesn't speak French and start speaking French to them. Likewise, to use the word right in the presence of somebody that doesn't understand what it means isn't particularly useful. It's like taking the brick wall they have in their mind and placing it directly between you before trying to speak to them through it I would argue.

 

For example. I noticed in my earlier days of studying Stef's work that he used the phrase "the initiation of the use of force" where I believed "the initiation of force" would've sufficed. I've recognized the way being overly-verbose can turn others off, so I was curious as to why he'd refer to something with nearly twice the words necessary. I eventually ran into a couple of people that regarded the word "initiation" in its "origin" definition instead of its "initial" definition. I've since taken to using the more verbose expression so as to avoid this mental roadblock some people have. I'm not yielding to intellectual sloth, nor am I dignifying ex post facto selective definition observation. I would describe it as trying to communicate with them in the manner in which I believe I will encounter the least amount of resistance while remaining consistent.

[PatrickC]

Great stuff Alex, as always. I think this is your best to date, in my opinion.

[alexqr1]

However, simply using damaged words would be more of a brute force method. ...You wouldn't walk up to somebody who doesn't speak French and start speaking French to them.

That is a good point. However, positive and negative rights are concepts that already exist in philosophy, politics and law. How would you resolve that issue?

Great stuff Alex, as always. I think this is your best to date, in my opinion.

Thank You Xelent, I appreciate it. It's good to know I'm getting better.

[dsayers]

In the case of positive and negative rights, if there is no alternative, then that's fine. I'm not saying that I'm correct. But I have spoken with people that when you ask them what rights they have, they turn to legislation as if the whimsical words of a few can alter reality. It's a mindset I seek to breakthrough in order to liberate that many more minds.

[dsayers]

I finally got around to sharing this with a buddy of mine that I'm discussing such things with. He's sort of past the basics, but it's expressed so clearly in this video, I find it to be a valuable refresher. So I thought I'd bump this thread while I was at it.