Equality of opportunity

[Figleaf]

The evidence in support of that comment is: A- every society known to history has had a method for determining disputes, ergo it is one of the primary roles. In fact, agglomerations of people without such methods scarcely qualify as societies at all. Dispute resolution/accommodation of interests is practically a sine qua non of a society. B- the clear trend of economic development co-incides with improvements in both the consistency of the rule of law, and the accessibility of justice for every member of society. Past societies (with substantially lower wealth levels than we experience today) we less accomplished in the measures of consistency and accessibility of justice. Societies today with lower levels of wealth (e.g. Somalia) are also characterized by less reliable and accessible justice compared to wealthier societies (e.g. Luxembourg).

If by "justice" you mean dispute resolution mechnisms, then I agree. If by "justice" you mean a system of broader redressing of inequities then I disagree. Maybe you can specify which you mean.

I think the the one folds into the other. Termination of disputes based on whim or power is not the same as 'settlement' of them. The latter necessarily implies a view of what the right or wrong of the situation is. (That view may or may not be 'just' by our lights, but it is neither here nor there.)

-equal opportunity increases the potential number and quality of participants in wealth enhancing activities.

Even if we accept this statement at face value, the issue remains that those who are force to fund the equality of opportunity are not necessarily the ones who are the beneficiaries of the wealth enhancing activities. So why should they agree to do so?

The proposition can be demonstrated by a simple model if you need me to. As to the issue of why persons holding privilege should agree to greater equity, there are two answers:

A- possibly, a sufficient portion of the increase in overall wealth would accrue to them to offset the cost to them; and/or

B- their agreement need not be considered necessary.

It is not based on them sitting idle, it is based on them being denied the best possible use of their potential. If they are denied the best use, any other use is second best (or worse) and represents a loss.

First, you assume that everyone if provided the opportunity will choose a course of action which makes the best possible use of their potential.

No. We have been over this. I need only assume that SOME would choose a course of action that makes a BETTER use. And I've already noted that this can be assumed based on the known incentives related to consumption and production.

Well, I wonder what you mean by coercion. If one kid steals another kid's backpack, is it coercive if the school principle forces its return?

Both the kid who steals and the principal would have used coercion in your example.

Okay, so should the principal return the backpack to the first kid or not?

For it to be wrong to take the money, there must be some right for them to retain it. What or who says the money is theirs at all?

This is the nut of the matter isn't it? My view is that earned wealth is the personal property of the earner. Your view is that it somehow belongs to society. All conclusions stem from that presumption. How do you prove which one of us is right?

That's not quite it. My point is that the very meaning of 'belong' is defined by society. There may be better or worse ways for society to define it, and for practical reasons society will want to avoid changing its definition lightly. But it is society's artifact, and amenable to society's needs.

[Renegade]

That's not quite it. My point is that the very meaning of 'belong' is defined by society. There may be better or worse ways for society to define it, and for practical reasons society will want to avoid changing its definition lightly. But it is society's artifact, and amenable to society's needs.

Figleaf, I am going to stop addressing the other points because responses to the others are meaningless unless we have some concensus on this one.

If "belong" is defined by society, then there is no limit to what can be taken from any of us at the whim of society. I believe property rights is a fundamental right of an individual and is not dictated by what society grants him. This is as much a fundamental right as an individual's right to live, or do you believe that too is granted at the whim of society?

[Figleaf]

That's not quite it. My point is that the very meaning of 'belong' is defined by society. There may be better or worse ways for society to define it, and for practical reasons society will want to avoid changing its definition lightly. But it is society's artifact, and amenable to society's needs.

Figleaf, I am going to stop addressing the other points because responses to the others are meaningless unless we have some concensus on this one.

Fair enough, though we may then end up returning to them.

If "belong" is defined by society, then there is no limit to what can be taken from any of us at the whim of society. I believe property rights is a fundamental right of an individual and is not dictated by what society grants him. This is as much a fundamental right as an individual's right to live, or do you believe that too is granted at the whim of society?

I wouldn't call it 'whim', but I would say that all 'rights' are societal constructs. Here's why:

-In the total absense of any society at all, that is, for the person alone in the wilderness, the concept of 'rights' means nothing as nature takes no cognizance of the concept or any claim to it. Tell the freezing wind of your 'right' to live or tell the grizzly of your ownership of the berry bush. It avails you naught.

-Among persons without a pre-existing social structure, that is, two or more people meeting in the wilderness for the first time, 'rights' won't mean anything until they are claimed and accepted. If they are not accepted, they remain claims. The stronger can enforce her claim, but that's not a 'right' as we mean the concept. If the stronger is merely forcing the others, she creates thereby no expectation that the others will do anything but force her to acquiesce to them, if and when they gain an upper hand.

Accordingly, 'rights' only arise in the context of a society, and they constitute the foundation of a social contract.

[Renegade]

-In the total absense of any society at all, that is, for the person alone in the wilderness, the concept of 'rights' means nothing as nature takes no cognizance of the concept or any claim to it. Tell the freezing wind of your 'right' to live or tell the grizzly of your ownership of the berry bush. It avails you naught.

No, not quite. In the total absence of society there is no one to trangress your rights. You have the right to live, right to free speech, and even property rights, because there is no obstructions to those rights.

Your example of "freezing wind" or grizzly's are invalid as either are inanimate or don't have the capacity to understand your rights, let alone respect them. Furthermore, even if you live in a society, freezing wind, will still freeze your ass to death, regardless if society grants you the right to live.

-Among persons without a pre-existing social structure, that is, two or more people meeting in the wilderness for the first time, 'rights' won't mean anything until they are claimed and accepted. If they are not accepted, they remain claims. The stronger can enforce her claim, but that's not a 'right' as we mean the concept. If the stronger is merely forcing the others, she creates thereby no expectation that the others will do anything but force her to acquiesce to them, if and when they gain an upper hand.

It's one view, but it is not mine. Do you think in a society that accepted slavery as the norm, that the slaves had no rights to freedom because they weren't granted by that society's concensus?

In fact based upon your description, I would say it requires force to "claim" and enforce "rights" in society it now exists. That is distinctly not my view of rights.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If two races coexist in one society, and Race "A" is the majority, and Race "A" decides that Race "B" should not have the right to live simply because they belong to Race "B". Can I assume that based upon your justification of how one accrues rights, that Race "B" has no right to live? Does it at all depend upon what Race "B" wants in terms of rights, or can they be "outvoted"?

[Figleaf]

-In the total absense of any society at all, that is, for the person alone in the wilderness, the concept of 'rights' means nothing as nature takes no cognizance of the concept or any claim to it. Tell the freezing wind of your 'right' to live or tell the grizzly of your ownership of the berry bush. It avails you naught.

No, not quite. In the total absence of society there is no one to trangress your rights. You have the right to live, right to free speech, and even property rights, because there is no obstructions to those rights.

Your example of "freezing wind" or grizzly's are invalid as either are inanimate or don't have the capacity to understand your rights, let alone respect them. Furthermore, even if you live in a society, freezing wind, will still freeze your ass to death, regardless if society grants you the right to live.

You seem to imply then that 'rights' requires there to be someone to understand and respect them. I agree.

-Among persons without a pre-existing social structure, that is, two or more people meeting in the wilderness for the first time, 'rights' won't mean anything until they are claimed and accepted. If they are not accepted, they remain claims. The stronger can enforce her claim, but that's not a 'right' as we mean the concept. If the stronger is merely forcing the others, she creates thereby no expectation that the others will do anything but force her to acquiesce to them, if and when they gain an upper hand.

It's one view, but it is not mine. Do you think in a society that accepted slavery as the norm, that the slaves had no rights to freedom because they weren't granted by that society's concensus?

Precisely. In a society where slavery is allowed, anyone asserting the 'right' of slaves to be free is arguing that the right should be created or extended to them. The US declaration of independence is, in this respect, wrong-headed -- we are not endowed with rights by our creator, such a notion is meaningless.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If two races coexist in one society, and Race "A" is the majority, and Race "A" decides that Race "B" should not have the right to live simply because they belong to Race "B". Can I assume that based upon your justification of how one accrues rights, that Race "B" has no right to live? Does it at all depend upon what Race "B" wants in terms of rights, or can they be "outvoted"?

My personal view is that Race A is being mean, and wrong. But they are in a conflict over what the 'rights' possessed by Race B should be. I don't see any qualitative difference between the assertion by Race A in your example there, and the assertion you made earlier that one group should have privileges (opportunities) not available to another group.

[Renegade]

Precisely. In a society where slavery is allowed, anyone asserting the 'right' of slaves to be free is arguing that the right should be created or extended to them. The US declaration of independence is, in this respect, wrong-headed -- we are not endowed with rights by our creator, such a notion is meaningless.

This is where we disagree. The slaves always has the right to be free, they didn't need the owners to extend or grant them those rights. They simply needed the owners to respect those rights.

You next question will be who gave them those rights? The rights are intrinsic to their being. They are not granted by anyone.

I would suggest that Rights Organization's view of rights are more in line with my view than yours. How can rights be violated in China when (according to your interpretation) Chinese society never chose to grant the victims those rights.

My personal view is that Race A is being mean, and wrong. But they are in a conflict over what the 'rights' possessed by Race B should be. I don't see any qualitative difference between the assertion by Race A in your example there, and the assertion you made earlier that one group should have privileges (opportunities) not available to another group.

I have never asserted that one group has a "right" to certain privleges or opportunities not available another group. They possess those priviliges by circumstances or possibly chance. What I object to is that a fundemental right is violated in the process of equalizing those opportunities. No one would have any objection to equalizing opportunities if society did not have to forcibly extort funds from some of its citizens to do so.

In my view there is no fundamental right to "equal opportunity", so there is no violation if we don't provide equal opportunity to all individuals.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Precisely. In a society where slavery is allowed, anyone asserting the 'right' of slaves to be free is arguing that the right should be created or extended to them. The US declaration of independence is, in this respect, wrong-headed -- we are not endowed with rights by our creator, such a notion is meaningless.

This is where we disagree. The slaves always has the right to be free, they didn't need the owners to extend or grant them those rights. They simply needed the owners to respect those rights.

You next question will be who gave them those rights? The rights are intrinsic to their being. They are not granted by anyone.

I would suggest that Rights Organization's view of rights are more in line with my view than yours. How can rights be violated in China when (according to your interpretation) Chinese society never chose to grant the victims those rights.

How many times must I say it. You have no right to nuttin. Get on with your lives and realize that life is NOT fair.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong correlation between people who realize this and their high level of success.

It's a chicken and egg thing when yuo think about it. If you EXPECT life to be fair, then you're probably not going to be driven, you will be a loser and then you will complain about how life isn't as fair as you expected it to be.

Whereas if you start from the point of realizing that life isn't fair and you have to make your own breaks, then you bust your ass and make something of yourself.

It's no coincidence all poor losers are socialists you know. They're either lazy or they're operating in their own self interest. Ironic, actually.

My personal view is that Race A is being mean, and wrong. But they are in a conflict over what the 'rights' possessed by Race B should be. I don't see any qualitative difference between the assertion by Race A in your example there, and the assertion you made earlier that one group should have privileges (opportunities) not available to another group.

I have never asserted that one group has a "right" to certain privleges or opportunities not available another group. They possess those priviliges by circumstances or possibly chance. What I object to is that a fundemental right is violated in the process of equalizing those opportunities. No one would have any objection to equalizing opportunities if society did not have to forcibly extort funds from some of its citizens to do so.

In my view there is no fundamental right to "equal opportunity", so there is no violation if we don't provide equal opportunity to all individuals.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Precisely. In a society where slavery is allowed, anyone asserting the 'right' of slaves to be free is arguing that the right should be created or extended to them. The US declaration of independence is, in this respect, wrong-headed -- we are not endowed with rights by our creator, such a notion is meaningless.

This is where we disagree. The slaves always has the right to be free, they didn't need the owners to extend or grant them those rights. They simply needed the owners to respect those rights.

You next question will be who gave them those rights? The rights are intrinsic to their being. They are not granted by anyone.

I would suggest that Rights Organization's view of rights are more in line with my view than yours. How can rights be violated in China when (according to your interpretation) Chinese society never chose to grant the victims those rights.

How many times must I say it. You have no right to nuttin. Get on with your lives and realize that life is NOT fair.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong correlation between people who realize this and their high level of success.

It's a chicken and egg thing when yuo think about it. If you EXPECT life to be fair, then you're probably not going to be driven, you will be a loser and then you will complain about how life isn't as fair as you expected it to be.

Whereas if you start from the point of realizing that life isn't fair and you have to make your own breaks, then you bust your ass and make something of yourself.

It's no coincidence all poor losers are socialists you know. They're either lazy or they're operating in their own self interest. Ironic, actually.

My personal view is that Race A is being mean, and wrong. But they are in a conflict over what the 'rights' possessed by Race B should be. I don't see any qualitative difference between the assertion by Race A in your example there, and the assertion you made earlier that one group should have privileges (opportunities) not available to another group.

I have never asserted that one group has a "right" to certain privleges or opportunities not available another group. They possess those priviliges by circumstances or possibly chance. What I object to is that a fundemental right is violated in the process of equalizing those opportunities. No one would have any objection to equalizing opportunities if society did not have to forcibly extort funds from some of its citizens to do so.

In my view there is no fundamental right to "equal opportunity", so there is no violation if we don't provide equal opportunity to all individuals.

[Renegade]

How many times must I say it. You have no right to nuttin. Get on with your lives and realize that life is NOT fair.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong correlation between people who realize this and their high level of success.

It's a chicken and egg thing when yuo think about it. If you EXPECT life to be fair, then you're probably not going to be driven, you will be a loser and then you will complain about how life isn't as fair as you expected it to be.

Whereas if you start from the point of realizing that life isn't fair and you have to make your own breaks, then you bust your ass and make something of yourself.

It's no coincidence all poor losers are socialists you know. They're either lazy or they're operating in their own self interest. Ironic, actually.

I'm not exactly sure who your posted is directed at Jerry, but I at least partially agree with you. Life is unfair and we shouldn't be trying to iron out those inequities between individuals.

[Figleaf]

Precisely. In a society where slavery is allowed, anyone asserting the 'right' of slaves to be free is arguing that the right should be created or extended to them. The US declaration of independence is, in this respect, wrong-headed -- we are not endowed with rights by our creator, such a notion is meaningless.

This is where we disagree. The slaves always has the right to be free, they didn't need the owners to extend or grant them those rights. They simply needed the owners to respect those rights.

The slaves would claim the right to be free. The owners would claim the right to own the slaves. What determines whose 'right' is right?

You next question will be who gave them those rights? The rights are intrinsic to their being. They are not granted by anyone.

So the slave owners assert that their ownership right is 'intrinsic' to them. and you're no further ahead.

My personal view is that Race A is being mean, and wrong. But they are in a conflict over what the 'rights' possessed by Race B should be. I don't see any qualitative difference between the assertion by Race A in your example there, and the assertion you made earlier that one group should have privileges (opportunities) not available to another group.

I have never asserted that one group has a "right" to certain privleges or opportunities not available another group. They possess those priviliges by circumstances or possibly chance.

Circumstances or chance? I fail to see how that can justify or un-justify any claim about 'rights'.

What I object to is that a fundemental right is violated in the process of equalizing those opportunities.

Adding the word 'fundamental' doesn't change the nature of the question involved. You assert a right not to have to pay for equity. I assert a right to equity. How do you resolve it?

In my view there is no fundamental right to "equal opportunity", so there is no violation if we don't provide equal opportunity to all individuals.

But what is your 'view' there based on, other than whimsy?

You will probably have noticed that all of my questions and points above amount to the same challenge: Between disputants making irresoluble claims, neither outcome can be justified based solely on reference to that side's claim in and of itself.

It seems to me that all your position amounts to is saying that the rights you like are 'fundamental' and the rights you don't like are not fundamental. You need some basis in reason for making such distinctions, which so far I cannot detect in your arguments.

[Renegade]

The slaves would claim the right to be free. The owners would claim the right to own the slaves. What determines whose 'right' is right?

So the slave owners assert that their ownership right is 'intrinsic' to them. and you're no further ahead.

Circumstances or chance? I fail to see how that can justify or un-justify any claim about 'rights'.

Adding the word 'fundamental' doesn't change the nature of the question involved. You assert a right not to have to pay for equity. I assert a right to equity. How do you resolve it?

But what is your 'view' there based on, other than whimsy?

You will probably have noticed that all of my questions and points above amount to the same challenge: Between disputants making irresoluble claims, neither outcome can be justified based solely on reference to that side's claim in and of itself.

You are correct that all your questions amount to the same challenge. You are asking for proof that fundamental rights exist and that they are more than just claims of rights by various parties.

The short answer is that no proof exists. These are philosophisical constructs. You are asking for proof that murder is wrong, and proof that slavery is immoral. I can't give you that proof. I can only point to the consensus of philosophical though, some of which is summarized here: Human Rights and Natural Rights

If you don't accept the concept of human rights which exist independant of what any particular society grants, then you suscribe to a view of society which is dominated by power, either physical or political. That society will only grant "rights" at its own whim.

[Figleaf]

The slaves would claim the right to be free. The owners would claim the right to own the slaves. What determines whose 'right' is right?

So the slave owners assert that their ownership right is 'intrinsic' to them. and you're no further ahead.

Circumstances or chance? I fail to see how that can justify or un-justify any claim about 'rights'.

Adding the word 'fundamental' doesn't change the nature of the question involved. You assert a right not to have to pay for equity. I assert a right to equity. How do you resolve it?

But what is your 'view' there based on, other than whimsy?

You will probably have noticed that all of my questions and points above amount to the same challenge: Between disputants making irresoluble claims, neither outcome can be justified based solely on reference to that side's claim in and of itself.

You are correct that all your questions amount to the same challenge. You are asking for proof that fundamental rights exist and that they are more than just claims of rights by various parties.

I'm not asking for proof, because I know already there isn't any. Rather, I am offering you 'proof' that the position you've taken is logically untenable. (This implies an opportunity for you to reformulate your beliefs in an improved way.)

You are asking for proof that murder is wrong, and proof that slavery is immoral. I can't give you that proof.

But they ARE wrong -- within a context, and against practical measures. They only become insubstantial and 'unproveable' when they are turned into free-standing articles of faith

If you don't accept the concept of human rights which exist independant of what any particular society grants, then you suscribe to a view of society which is dominated by power, either physical or political.

Sometimes dominated by power, perhaps, but ultimately determined by reason (which is, of course, the ultimate power).

Anyway, this brings us back around to the thread topic. There is no reason you can refer to to support the contention that some people have a right to retain access to opportunities that are denied to others. The objection to equality of opportunity does

not stand.

[Renegade]

But they ARE wrong -- within a context, and against practical measures. They only become insubstantial and 'unproveable' when they are turned into free-standing articles of faith

Yes they are wrong. Just as theft is wrong. Your position is that your belief in equalizing of opportunities justifies theft from others inorder to fund it. You try to avoid the fact that theft is wrong regardless, by not acknowledging the theft.

Anyway, this brings us back around to the thread topic. There is no reason you can refer to to support the contention that some people have a right to retain access to opportunities that are denied to others. The objection to equality of opportunity does

not stand.

You are either misquoting or misunderstanding what I have said. I did not say that some people "have a right to retain access to opportunities that are denied to others", I simply contend that they are not obligated to fund such a program.

Rather, I am offering you 'proof' that the position you've taken is logically untenable. (This implies an opportunity for you to reformulate your beliefs in an improved way.)

Unfortunately you have not done so, otherwise I would happily change my positon. If you claim that I have not offered you support for my position, I would say that neither have you provided either proof or sufficient evidence for a position which ultimately deprives people of property which they have freely earned.

[Figleaf]

Your position is that your belief in equalizing of opportunities justifies theft from others inorder to fund it. You try to avoid the fact that theft is wrong regardless, by not acknowledging the theft.

For 'theft' to have meaning, there must be some meaningful concept of property. 'Theft' can only be 'wrong' if it violates property rights. To determine whether an action violates property rights you need to have a conception of property that refers to a more meaningful context than merely asserting 'MINE'.

Anyway, this brings us back around to the thread topic. There is no reason you can refer to to support the contention that some people have a right to retain access to opportunities that are denied to others. The objection to equality of opportunity does

not stand.

You are either misquoting or misunderstanding what I have said.

Certainly not misquoting.

I did not say that some people "have a right to retain access to opportunities that are denied to others", I simply contend that they are not obligated to fund such a program.

I can't see what difference you are trying to point out there.

[Renegade]

For 'theft' to have meaning, there must be some meaningful concept of property. 'Theft' can only be 'wrong' if it violates property rights. To determine whether an action violates property rights you need to have a conception of property that refers to a more meaningful context than merely asserting 'MINE'.

Given that you do not acknowledge that property rights even exist, I can see why you don't acknowledge that "theft" is "wrong".

I can't see what difference you are trying to point out there.

The difference is that in one statement would imply that some people would proactively act to deny people opportunities. My statement implies that there is no action required on their part. It is simply life that denys people opportunites.

Based upon your POV, it would not surprise me if you did not grasp the distinction.

[Figleaf]

For 'theft' to have meaning, there must be some meaningful concept of property. 'Theft' can only be 'wrong' if it violates property rights. To determine whether an action violates property rights you need to have a conception of property that refers to a more meaningful context than merely asserting 'MINE'.

Given that you do not acknowledge that property rights even exist, I can see why you don't acknowledge that "theft" is "wrong".

Just like any other 'right', property rights exist if society says they do. Within that context, 'theft' would mean illegal alienation of 'property' from its 'owner'.

I did not say that some people "have a right to retain access to opportunities that are denied to others", I simply contend that they are not obligated to fund such a program.

I can't see what difference you are trying to point out there.

The difference is that in one statement would imply that some people would proactively act to deny people opportunities. My statement implies that there is no action required on their part. It is simply life that denys people opportunites.

There does not seem to be any logical reason to equate an arbitrary/artifactual property regime maintained by the active support of government with 'life' (i.e. chance).

[Renegade]

Just like any other 'right', property rights exist if society says they do. Within that context, 'theft' would mean illegal alienation of 'property' from its 'owner'.

From the first link I pointed to you:

Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localizing factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex. As is evident in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights, at least in the post-war period, are conceptualized as based on inherent human dignity, retaining their universal and inalienable character.

Read the phrase "regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localizing factors". Read thte words "universal and inalienable character". All of these state that all rights by definition are not dictated by the whims of society otherwise they are not rights at all.

There does not seem to be any logical reason to equate an arbitrary/artifactual property regime maintained by the active support of government with 'life' (i.e. chance).

There is no logical reason why there should be beautiful people and ugly people either, or any logic that says that the regime should work to equalize the level of attractiveness among the population either. Life, chance is unfair. Get used to it.

[Figleaf]

Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localizing factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex. As is evident in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights, at least in the post-war period, are conceptualized as based on inherent human dignity, retaining their universal and inalienable character.

Society can DECLARE certain rights inalienable. But that doesn't mean the rights exist in some abstract Platonic realm of the essence. That means they are DECLARED by that society to be inalienable. Absent that declaration, what are the rights? Absent enforcement of them, where do they exist?

All of these state that all rights by definition are not dictated by the whims of society otherwise they are not rights at all.

The UN is a product of human society. Its declarations are thus within the meaning I have argued ... creations of society.

There does not seem to be any logical reason to equate an arbitrary/artifactual property regime maintained by the active support of government with 'life' (i.e. chance).

There is no logical reason why there should be beautiful people and ugly people either, or any logic that says that the regime should work to equalize the level of attractiveness among the population either.

That's really quite beside the point. A person's appearance is determined by chance. The laws of property and civil rights are constructed by society through government. But indeed, there is no inherent reason that a society might not seek to help persons whose appearance falls outside the usual norms.

[M.Dancer]

Oh of course there's equality in opportunity.....you can tell for sure because nearly 50% of the CEOs and nearly 50% of the government leaders are women, eh........

[myata]

And again, the result cannot (and should not) be held reflective of the lack of opportunity. You should know: every male has the opportunity to pursue a certain female. But only few will succeed.

[Renegade]

Society can DECLARE certain rights inalienable. But that doesn't mean the rights exist in some abstract Platonic realm of the essence. That means they are DECLARED by that society to be inalienable. Absent that declaration, what are the rights? Absent enforcement of them, where do they exist?

No they didn't just declare it, the ACKNOWLEDGED it. Absent their declarition that the sun and planets exist, do they still exist? Of course they do. If police don't enforce a law, do violations of that law still happen? Of course it does. Rights don't exist because society, the UN, or governments declare they do, those organizations simply acknowledge what its existance.

The UN is a product of human society. Its declarations are thus within the meaning I have argued ... creations of society.

Yes, the UN is a product of and part of human society, so are you, so am I, so is everyone else, so is all of mankind through history. Are you saying that any declaration made by anyone is simply a construct of society and would not exist otherwise?

You cannot use the fact that the UN (and many other organizations and philosophers) acknowledge human rights as justification that they only created at the whim of society, because if that is your justification, then every declaration or acknowledgment by any organization would fall into that category.

That's really quite beside the point. A person's appearance is determined by chance. The laws of property and civil rights are constructed by society through government. But indeed, there is no inherent reason that a society might not seek to help persons whose appearance falls outside the usual norms.

Yes it may be beside the point but it is related. Beautiful people have an advantage. Society could choose to equalize that advantage, but it does not, even though you feel that it perhaps should. In the same way, society has no inherent obligation to equalize opportunities, despite the fact that you feel that it should.

[Figleaf]

Society can DECLARE certain rights inalienable. But that doesn't mean the rights exist in some abstract Platonic realm of the essence. That means they are DECLARED by that society to be inalienable. Absent that declaration, what are the rights? Absent enforcement of them, where do they exist?

No they didn't just declare it, the ACKNOWLEDGED it. Absent their declarition that the sun and planets exist, do they still exist? Of course they do.

That's silly. Absent the declaration, the sun and planets can still be observed and their gravity felt. Where can I observe undeclared rights?

The UN is a product of human society. Its declarations are thus within the meaning I have argued ... creations of society.

Yes, the UN is a product of and part of human society, so are you, so am I, ...

No. You and I are products of the fornication of our parents. You and I are not declarations, we are beings.

You cannot use the fact that the UN (and many other organizations and philosophers) acknowledge human rights as justification that they only created at the whim of society, because if that is your justification, then every declaration or acknowledgment by any organization would fall into that category.

Yes. I don't see the problem.

[Renegade]

Absent the declaration, the sun and planets can still be observed and their gravity felt. Where can I observe undeclared rights?

Does morality exist absent its declaration? Can you observe it? If there was no society would there still be morality?

Yes. I don't see the problem.

Obviously.

[Figleaf]

Does morality exist absent its declaration? ...

Like 'rights', absent a collective recognition, morality would mean no more than what each person claims about it from moment to moment. Like 'rights', in the absense of the measure of society, 'morality' is just a cacophony of interests.

I say eating fish is immoral, you say eating pork is immoral.

[Renegade]

Like 'rights', absent a collective recognition, morality would mean no more than what each person claims about it from moment to moment. Like 'rights', in the absense of the measure of society, 'morality' is just a cacophony of interests.

I say eating fish is immoral, you say eating pork is immoral.

And I say killing or theft is immoral regardless of society's measure.