Rights Don't Exist...Do Morals?

[xiv014]

In his video "Is education a human right?" Stefan made the claim that rights don't exist.  I completely agree with this statement.  Rights are a abstract ideas that don't exist in the real world.

 

I believe that the same argument applies to morals.  They are abstract ideas that don't exist in the real world.

 

What say you FRD community?

[dsayers]

Morality is not comprised of matter or energy. It is a concept that describes the real world.

[Kaki]

Morality doesn't exist in physical reality just like the scientific method does not exist in reality but that doesn't mean that they are invalid, false or should be ignored, even though both are optional. You don't have to follow the scientific method and there are no laws of physics which make you do so. Following the scientific method though gives you a lot of benefits compared to ignoring it. The same is true for a moral framework: "Universally Preferable Behavior", which, just like the scientific method, tests if an action is moral or immoral.

Just like the scientific method needs to follow certain rules a moral theory must follow those rules. A moral theory must be: universal, logical, empirical, reproducible and following occam's razor

 

(Have a look at Stef's book UBP which you can read here for free.)

 

Just like past rulers, priests etc. benefited from subjugating the rise of science, todays leaders benefit from defining morality as subjective or relative. And just like they benefit from defining morality at whim, they benefit from deciding what your rights are and what their rights are.

Giving people rights doesn't follow any logical, universal, empirical, reproducible principle.

[Pelafina]

Morals don't exist because they don't have mass or energy.

[Kason]

Mathematics is an abstraction that doesn't exist in the real world - Yet if we are interested in coming to the correct conclusion when performing an operation on numbers, we must use it to come to a reliable resultant.

 

"Do Morals Exist" is an interesting question - like Pelafina said, they don't have Mass or Energy. so they are not a physical object. The very act of debating the topic shows a preference for believing truth over falsehood, Communicable language over indiscernible noise as well as a preference for having others live in line with truth over falsehood. 

 

So universal preferences exist - is that just a rebrand of morals? I think so - as morals are defined as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." Which perfectly fits the bill for Universally Preferable Behaviors.

 

What do you think Xiv?

[Pelafina]

How do you come to a conclusion as to what is morally correct?  People have different opinions as to what standards of behavior are acceptable.  

 

Comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a math equation is not analogous to comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a moral belief.

[shirgall]

How do you come to a conclusion as to what is morally correct?  People have different opinions as to what standards of behavior are acceptable.  

 

Comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a math equation is not analogous to comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a moral belief.

 

You have repeatedly stated this conclusion on this message board, but you have not pointed out what in UPB you find to be in error. It's not so simple to just reject it because you don't like it or its conclusions.

 

If you don't think it is in error then it does stand as a logical framework for determining if actions are good or evil and it does make claims about morality analogous to mathematical ones.

[Pelafina]

You have repeatedly stated this conclusion on this message board, but you have not pointed out what in UPB you find to be in error. It's not so simple to just reject it because you don't like it or its conclusions.

 

If you don't think it is in error then it does stand as a logical framework for determining if actions are good or evil and it does make claims about morality analogous to mathematical ones.

 

You haven't pointed out what I said in the previous post you find to be in error.  Let me restate my point and my question:

 

How do you come to a conclusion as to what is morally correct?  People have different opinions as to what standards of behavior are acceptable.  

 

Comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a math equation is not analogous to comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a moral belief.

[shirgall]

 

You haven't pointed out what I said in the previous post you find to be in error.  Let me restate my point and my question:

 

How do you come to a conclusion as to what is morally correct?  People have different opinions as to what standards of behavior are acceptable.  

 

Comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a math equation is not analogous to comparing the correctness or incorrectness of a moral belief.

 

 

I have pointed out, repeatedly, I've said that there's a whole book on this exact subject, called Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux. I'm not going to quote the entire book and the arguments within it here, but please follow the link.

[Pepin]

What is a moral exactly?

[Pelafina]

If you don't think it is in error then it does stand as a logical framework for determining if actions are good or evil.

I have read UPB.  The book doesn't provide a framework that tells whether actions are good or evil.  It describes what behaviors tend to be preferred by most people, most of the time.

[Level_One]

It describes what behaviors tend to be preferred by most people, most of the time.

That would be the framework that tells whether actions are good or evil

[Pelafina]

That would be the framework that tells whether actions are good or evil

Why are actions which are preferred most of the time considered to be good actions?  

[shirgall]

I have read UPB.  The book doesn't provide a framework that tells whether actions are good or evil.  It describes what behaviors tend to be preferred by most people, most of the time.

 

I don't think you read the same book I did, then. He runs through a number of actions and tests them against the framework to find out whether they are good, evil, or otherwise.

 

 

 To help us separate aesthetics from ethics, let us start by widening these categories to encompass any behaviour that can be subjected to an ethical analysis. These seven categories are:

• It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”).
• It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as “politeness” and “being on time”).
• It is personally positive (neither universally preferable nor enforceable, such a predilection for eating ice cream).
• It is neutral, or has no ethical or aesthetic content, such as running for a bus.
• It is personally negative (predilection for not eating ice cream).
• It is aesthetically negative (“rudeness” and “being late”).
• It is evil (universally proscribed) (“rape”).

[WasatchMan]

I don't think Stef means that rights don't exist as a concept, I beleive his argument could be better sumarized by saying:

 

"The concept of rights aren't very helpful at achieving freedom because the concept is too broadly applicable, and therefore cannot be delimited to only concepts that actually promote freedom."

[Level_One]

Why are actions which are preferred most of the time considered to be good actions?  

Well for example, take theft. Some people like to steal. However, almost nobody likes to be stolen from. So even if you like stealing, you can still recognize "do not steal" as a universally preferable behavior, because you yourself do not like to be stolen from. The rule of "don't steal" is something everybody, even a would-be thief, can agree with, prefer, and live by without ever infringing, to the benefit of everybody including themselves. Everybody can be happy under a "don't steal" system, even people who like to steal, but there will inevitably be people who are unhappy in a "steal" system. Therefore, it is good to not steal, because not stealing is universally preferable to stealing.

[Pelafina]

Well for example, take theft. Some people like to steal. However, almost nobody likes to be stolen from. So even if you like stealing, you can still recognize "do not steal" as a universally preferable behavior, because you yourself do not like to be stolen from. The rule of "don't steal" is something everybody, even a would-be thief, can agree with, prefer, and live by without ever infringing, to the benefit of everybody including themselves. Everybody can be happy under a "don't steal" system, even people who like to steal, but there will inevitably be people who are unhappy in a "steal" system. Therefore, it is good to not steal, because not stealing is universally preferable to stealing.

If not stealing were universally preferable to stealing, and if nobody likes to be stolen from, then why is taxation legal?  Obviously people are satisfied with the morality/immorality of taxation.  

 

So it is universally preferable to have a taxation system.  Maybe people's preferences will change in the future and taxation will be eliminated, or maybe not.  

[Dave-UK]

If not stealing were universally preferable to stealing, and if nobody likes to be stolen from, then why is taxation legal? Obviously people are satisfied with the morality/immorality of taxation.

Now, there's a leap of logic!

Legality has nothing to do with what is moral or universally acceptable. Legality is simply based on what those with the power (gun) find preferable. I, like most people, pay my taxes because I don't want to go to prison, not because I'm satisfied with the morality of it.

[Pelafina]

Now, there's a leap of logic!

Legality has nothing to do with what is moral or universally acceptable. Legality is simply based on what those with the power (gun) find preferable. I, like most people, pay my taxes because I don't want to go to prison, not because I'm satisfied with the morality of it.

 

And some people pay their taxes because they consent to that system.  Many people feel patriotic when they pay their taxes.  You view taxation as theft.  Some people consent to it, therefore there is no violation of the NAP with those people.

[shirgall]

And some people pay their taxes because they consent to that system.  Many people feel patriotic when they pay their taxes.  You view taxation as theft.  Some people consent to it, therefore there is no violation of the NAP with those people.

 

When a imposingly huge person towers over you says "That's a nice watch, will you give it to me?" and you you rationalize that they need it more than you and comply... does that negate the threat of force? This is the very basis of strong-arm robbery.

[Pelafina]

When a imposingly huge person towers over you says "That's a nice watch, will you give it to me?" and you you rationalize that they need it more than you and comply... does that negate the threat of force? This is the very basis of strong-arm robbery.

Some people like the system of taxation.  They're happy to pay taxes and they're happy that the taxman forces non-willing participants to become taxpayers.  

 

The willing participants are not being aggressed against, because they consent to the system.  The others who make payments unwillingly are victims of theft.

[shirgall]

Some people like the system of taxation.  They're happy to pay taxes and they're happy that the taxman forces non-willing participants to become taxpayers.  

 

The willing participants are not being aggressed against, because they consent to the system.  The others who make payments unwillingly are victims of theft.

 

The test I like to use here is whether they are willing to overpay their taxes if they like them so much. Usually, the willingness I observe is related to the universality of the taxation, and not the amount.

 

There are some I've encountered who gleefully pay their taxes only so long as someone else is getting it worse. I am not fond of the "victimhood culture" that has engendered such things.

 

Back to the shopkeepers, though, we have no idea what their motives are, but I tried to paint a scenario where could be seen as victims, not where they joyfully pay taxes. If I were to go in that direction, they would joyfully pay taxes if it keeps competition away by erecting barriers to entry of their market and indeed avarice drives them to report sellers of untaxed loosies.

[powder]

I have never met anyone that is happy to pay their taxes in the same way they are happy to give gifts or support their favorite charities.  I know many people that consent to and support the tax system, are even proud and patriotic about what they consider a 'necessary evil' and are keen to report any possible tax evaders.  This is not because they like it, but because they are convinced, and wrongly so, that it is required.  That is not the same as voluntary participation, it is a response to coercion.