Social Justice Warriors to Believers in Truth: Drop Dead

_{Barry Arrington

February 6, 2019

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Those of us who believe in truth, virtue and “justice” (unadorned with the modifier “social”) are inimical to the “social justice” movement. So says this UN report:

“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations, The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, Division for Social Policy and Development, The International Forum for Social Development, 2006, 2-3

Comments

Brother Brian's view of history has the Brits landing with property right lawyers giving the boot to the natives. :razz:ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
In “stand your ground” states you can even kill someone for the crime of stepping foot on your property.
That is incorrect:
Stand Your Ground laws should only allow what their name suggests: permit people who are threatened to stand their own ground and protect themselves. They should not give people the right to use force to defend someone else’s ground. Under no circumstances should people be able to confront others in a hostile manner, end up using deadly force, and escape punishment.
See also What ‘stand your ground’ laws actually meanET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
At best, all we can say is that core rights are a moving target.
In a subjective society based on might is right, sure.ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Oh my. Brother Brian is clueless. Property rights are useless if there isn't any way to enforce them. And it is a fact that the natives were outgunned by the incoming Europeans. That is how the Europeans were able to ignore the natives rights and press theirs into play.ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

ET
I have read some history, Brian. That is how I know that you are wrong and I am right. The natives were outgunned by the Europeans.
Then you should read some more.Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

KF
core rights inherent to our nature cannot be granted by society either, or else they can just as easily take them away again.
And, as history has shown, they have been taken away on many instances. At best, all we can say is that core rights are a moving target.Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Hazel@211, I agree. It could form a completely different thread. In the US you are within your rights to use whatever force is necessary to protect your property. In “stand your ground” states you can even kill someone for the crime of stepping foot on your property. In Canada (News can probably clarify) it is against the law to use any force to protect property.Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

I have read some history, Brian. That is how I know that you are wrong and I am right. The natives were outgunned by the Europeans.ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

BB, core rights inherent to our nature cannot be granted by society either, or else they can just as easily take them away again. Hence my remark above:
humans cannot grant core rights; though we can recognise them. Secondary rights such as entitlements or contract rights are extensions of basic rights, especially justice — the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Recall, a right in the core sense is a binding moral expectation to respect and support in a particular regard such as life, liberty, property, innocent reputation etc. My right to life implies your duty to respect and protect that innocent life. Such rights arise in the context that, manifestly, we are reasonable, responsible, morally governed creatures.
Also societies can and do have debates over what rights are and more, however cultural relativism directly implies that the reformer necessarily is wrong. This, too is part of why humans -- individually or collectively -- cannot create core rights inherent in our nature. What society or government or a judge giveth, such can take away again. Instead, our rights come from our core nature and from how we come to be responsible, rational, morally governed creatures. I already noted on secondary rights created by contract or the like: they are rooted in and are applications of justice. Property is actually antecedent to civil society. Communities do have differing law (often, in need of reform) but such answer to that law that no man can give or take away, the inherent law of our nature. KFkairosfocus_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

ET
No, it didn’t. The fact they were outgunned led to the suffering.
Read some history.Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
For example, the native Americans did not perceive property rights in the same way that thei invaders did. This led to much suffering.
No, it didn't. The fact they were outgunned led to the suffering.ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Good point about property rights, BB. Lots of interesting differences among cultures in that respect.hazel_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

KF
First, humans cannot grant core rights;
I agree. Only society can. The strength of these rights is proportional to the agreement amongst the humans in the society.
Recall, a right in the core sense is a binding moral expectation to respect and support in a particular regard such as life, liberty, property, innocent reputation etc.
Yes, and as a society we come into agreement on what these core rights are. For example, the native Americans did not perceive property rights in the same way that thei invaders did. This led to much suffering. Even very similar cultures like Canada and the US have very different property rights.Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

KF
BB, I notice, you were absent for that thread. KF
I cant be everywhere. :)Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

BB, I notice, you were absent for that thread. KFkairosfocus_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

On objective warranted (so, knowable) moral truth: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/logic-and-first-principles-10-knowable-moral-truth-and-moral-government-vs-nihilistic-manipulation/kairosfocus_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

BB First, humans cannot grant core rights; though we can recognise them. Secondary rights such as entitlements or contract rights are extensions of basic rights, especially justice -- the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Recall, a right in the core sense is a binding moral expectation to respect and support in a particular regard such as life, liberty, property, innocent reputation etc. My right to life implies your duty to respect and protect that innocent life. Such rights arise in the context that, manifestly, we are reasonable, responsible, morally governed creatures. You have already been presented with a framework of objective moral knowledge pivoting on how we universally recognise that our thought life is inextricably morally governed. That is the basis for serious discussion and community. In this context, to disregard or dismiss such is in effect to hold it delusional, leading directly to grand, self-referential delusion. If we are rational, we are responsible under moral government. This frames the law of our morally governed nature, and it is an implicit part of the context for the tradition of natural law and justice. It is noteworthy that over months now, the consistent reaction has been to try to object on mere difference of views, rather than to address warrant. SB, just above, responding to H, invites a responsible, reasonable explanation:
Notice that you have remained silent about the the “why” of your disagreement. You have provided no rational argument in defense of your opinion. Anyone can say “I disagree,” and just leave it at that. More information is needed. Do you believe that a fully developed human being has a right to remain alive? If not, please confirm that fact. If so, what is your rationale for saying that a developing human being does not have that same right?
That unresponsiveness to why has been a hallmark of recent objections, and it is a sign. In some cases, it was seen in response to even logical-mathematical demonstration pivoting on first principles of right reason. That means, and it is painful to have to point such out, that in some cases we are dealing in part with the fallacy of the closed, ideologically warped mind. If a crooked yardstick is somehow made the standard of straightness and accuracy, then what is really such cannot pass the test of conformity to crookedness. In extreme cases, plumb lines which are patently naturally upright and straight will not be enough to correct a sufficiently determined ideological lock-in. Only horrible consequences that bring things to a crash will effect change, at terrible cost. So, already we know that unreasonableness is a serious challenge. Now, too, this is a case where the calculable toll of holocaust is 800+ millions, indeed I can now justify estimates in the ballpark 1.2 - 1.6 billions. Since 1990 we have seen a plateau at about 50 millions per year, and a 10 - 20 year ramp would easily give such numbers. Let us stay with 800+. What is the reaction to such horrific numbers? To dehumanise and dismiss the victims, precisely what was done by Hitler et al, and by Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al. Where, the underlying premise is the self-evidently false and ruinously evil one: might and/or manipulation make 'truth' 'right' 'rights' etc. Nihilism, in one word -- a reduction to absurdity. That already sounds a warning. Going further, the key test case of the kidnapping, binding, sexual assault and murder of a young child for someone's sick pleasure [yes, this is unfortunately real world] shows self-evident evil at work. In my main online discussion I note:
. . . whatever moral view we take, we are casting the weight of our souls and the future of civilisation on it. The ethical component of our worldviews is awesomely momentous.]) So in the view of too many today, we are left to the feelings of revulsion and the community consensus backed up by police and courts on this. Not so. Compare a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. And even for those who object, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child -- not the other way around. But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. So, already, once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for 'right.' Oops. At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world. That is, we consider the imagined world of Plato where the denizens, having been imprisoned from childhood, all imagine that the shadow shows portrayed for their benefit are reality. Until, one is loosed, sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is led outside and learns of the reality that is there to be discovered. Then he tries to rescue his fellows, only to be ridiculed and attacked: Now, the skeptical question is, do we live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix's pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions -- an infinite regress of Plato's cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent.
Adding to this, the young child has no physical strength or eloquence to resist such a sick predator, and yet his or her rights are manifest. It is not might or manipulation leading to whatever community view obtains that sets rights. We all know this, those who object -- for years -- have therefore consistently refused to openly assert such for this case. But the case directly implies that the child self evidently has a right to innocent life. From which case or cases we can in fact construct a framework of objective moral knowledge, which is reflected in the sort of summary C S Lewis long ago made. Cowardice in battle is not commended, nor is murder of or theft from those who count. That, instantly reveals a key point: distorted morality locks out those who do not count, that is it pivots on dehumanisation and often on demonisation. Indeed, that is the logic of the Overton Window. Where also we saw the key folly of cultural relativism: the would-be reformer is automatically wrong as it is the dominant view that determines the right (and not merely the custom). Absurd, the sound reformer appeals to principles of justice. So, we already know that once we acknowledge that we are responsible, rational, significantly free morally governed creatures, we can accept the witness [not authority] of conscience and reason alike, leading to a body of moral knowledge, i.e. warranted, credibly true and reliable assertions as a coherent, reliable body. That was already laid out, but was studiously evaded. But none of such has ultimately grounded. Post Hume, only the roots of reality can do so. On this, it is interesting how you have personalised by short-circuiting the reasoning:
Are human rights (right to life etc.) granted by a deity, or by humans? If by a deity, then those who don’t accept that deity don’t have to abide by it.
But, we are not discussing imposition and arbitrary fiat but responsible, reasonable grounding of observed, clearly objective moral government at world-root level. Where if any other level is taken up, it presents us with want of grounding. There, at the roots of reality, or nowhere else. So, we must have courage to face what many will find unpalatable. Namely, that at worldviews level we face a grand inference to best explanation across no great number of alternatives. And as we are using comparative difficulties, one must answer by proposing an alternative: ________ and addressing factual adequacy ______ coherence __________ and balanced explanatory power __________ . As is manifest from your onward remark, those who reject what I will shortly put on the table have no serious alternative. You say "If by a deity, then those who don’t accept that deity don’t have to abide by it. If by humans, then we are forced to abide by societal consensus. To my mind, both are indefensible." Now, pray thee, why? Having dismissed God, you cannot find comfort in man. Unsurprising. This is just one form of the failure of other suggested candidates to be the morally adequate root of reality. And in a Google-it world, we may presume that indeed, no other adequate candidate is on the table, or it would have been suggested. That is, the case that there is but one serious candidate stands made. Just, not explicitly acknowledged. Now, too, the phrasing about some deity or other for some group or other points to the Euthyphro dilemma, so-called. To which the obvious answer is that 2400 years ago they spoke of supermen not the root of reality. So, we are at the notorious IS-OUGHT gap, and the only place it can be bridged, the root of reality. For which there is just one -- implicitly conceded -- serious candidate:
the inherently good and wise creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature.
Inherently good, necessary and maximally great being jointly imply that good is neither arbitrary decree nor distinct from the being at the root of reality. The entanglement of reason and moral government is fused at the root. Where, this then grounds moral reasoning as it builds coherent moral knowledge through reflection on our nature and duties, as is outlined above and as has been explored for centuries, being embedded in the roots of our legal tradition. Nor, is such sectarian, a disguised form of imposition and cultural relativism: we are reasoning responsibly under moral government that is inescapable on pain of grand delusion. We here are dealing with generic ethical theism, not imposition of any given sect. And, such moral knowledge and grounding are objective, they accord with our evident nature. That is, coherence, adequacy and explanatory power are embedded in the process. So, we can go back up and see how such challenges us to see that from the zygote on the unborn child of today is as we were once, he or she shares with us a common human life. That innocent life therefore must be respected, not subjected to arbitrary destruction under false colours of law. And, there are obvious ratchets at work so that failure to respect life here builds momentum and precedent to disrespect it elsewhere, for example as we have just seen with the New York infanticide law and the remarks of Governor Newsom of Virginia, USA. A medical doctor failing the test of Hippocrates of Cos:
Life is short, and art long, opportunity fleeting, experimentations perilous, and judgment difficult.
It is time to turn back from moral incoherence to moral soundness. The cost is already awful. The onward cost, catastrophic. KFkairosfocus_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT}

We have gone back and forth about this for days but it comes down to two issues. Are human rights (right to life etc.) granted by a deity, or by humans? If by a deity, then those who don’t accept that deity don’t have to abide by it. If by humans, then we are forced to abide by societal consensus. To my mind, both are indefensible.Brother Brian_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Hazel
We are in agreement about the facts, although actually I don’t think the word fetus is used to describe a developing zygote before implantation.
I was simply acknowledging the fact that a zygote and fetus are the same king of thing, albeit in a different stage of development. That point if often lost. Still, it probably is better, as you say, to refer to zygotes, since the principle error among abortionists is to claim that the age of the human being is an important consideration in determining if if it should be allowed to remain living. So once we argue on behalf of a zygote's right to life, all other bases are covered.
“I personally will agree with myself to disagree with you” about your last sentence.
Notice that you have remained silent about the the "why" of your disagreement. You have provided no rational argument in defense of your opinion. Anyone can say "I disagree," and just leave it at that. More information is needed. Do you believe that a fully developed human being has a right to remain alive? If not, please confirm that fact. If so, what is your rationale for saying that a developing human being does not have that same right?StephenB_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Stephen, as I said to kf, "I personally will agree with myself to disagree with you" about your last sentence. We are in agreement about the facts, although actually I don't think the word fetus is used to describe a developing zygote before implantation. I think fetus usually applies to an embryo about two months after conception.hazel_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Hazel
I acknowledge that those zygotes have a unique human genome, and disagree with your value judgments about how to treat them in that state. There probably is no more for me to say about this.
The human right to life is based on what the fetus *is*, not *where* it is in the developmental process. It is not a value judgment to say that the fetus *is* a living and developing human being. That is a fact, On the other hand, it is a value judgment to say either that the living fetus is entitled to remain alive or is not entitled to remain alive. The former choice is an arbitrary value judgment based on personal preference; the latter choice is a reasoned value judgment based on the natural moral law.StephenB_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

For reference: https://uncommondescent.com/biology/reference-fertilisation-and-implantation/kairosfocus_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

H, it is quite clear that IVF has gone into highly dubious territory already, from the outset. Secondly, that is a side-track; the focal question here is that the biologically manifest beginning of a new human life is the point where a zygote forms, which then grows for about a week before it is implanted.This underscores that devices or drugs which in material degree work by blocking implantation, are dubious. KFkairosfocus_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

I think those who support IVF, including discarding zygotes that have chromosomal abnormalities and recessive genes for serious developmental problems or life-long disabilities, would disagree with your last sentence. I personally will agree with myself to disagree with you on this point. I acknowledge that those zygotes have a unique human genome, and disagree with your value judgments about how to treat them in that state. There probably is no more for me to say about this.hazel_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

H, the fact that when a zygote forms a unique human life has begun is an observable, not a value judgement or perception -- and this is sounding all too familiar. The further fact that implantation takes place about a week later after growth processes have already begun is equally the case. The relevant value judgement that there is a right to innocent life is uncontroversial, save among those who would dehumanise and take targetted human life at will. KFkairosfocus_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

No, facts and value judgments are different. Value judgments need to honor the facts, but they include additional components.hazel_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

H, perspectives are of little account in the face of manifest biological facts. But then, the very theme of this thread reminds on the way inconvenient truth is so often treated nowadays. KFkairosfocus_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

No it doesn't. There are different perspectives about the various stages of development. One perspective is that a fertilized group of cells in the zygote stage can't possibly continue developing until they implant and thereby start the biological relationship with the mother that will lead to birth. From this perspective, conception involves establishing a viable growth relationship with the nurturing mother, so a child is not conceived until this point. It is not the biology that people disagree about, but people have different perspectives about the biology at different times. The fertilized cell in an IVF lab has a unique human genome, but not everyone would agree to say that a child had been conceived in the test tube.hazel_{February 19, 2019
February
02
Feb
19
19
2019
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

H, that blows the implantationist redefinition out of the water. KFkairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

kf writes, "Here, that a new life with a unique genome begins when sperm and ovum meet, forming the zygote." I haven't seen anyone disagree about this.hazel_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply