Yep I agree Best Guess.
1 Like
ages -
The Natural Lore is everything that exists has a ‘Right’ to exist and to not be abused.
And what is your evidence/argument for this ‘Natural Lore’?
The Living Energy within existing things to keep existing, and the flee, fight, or freeze response within living things when confronted with abuse or the fear of being abused, harmed, or damaged.
1 Like
Is that so? Which part of what community are you?
That is a very interesting way of framing the question.
First, I would like to step back from the question itself and examine the methodology of inquiry involved. This brings to mind the concept of “genealogy”—an attempt to return to the source and look there, in order to extrapolate conclusions about authenticity to current relationships. If we view “becoming” as a continuous process, then no single point in the formation of something takes precedence over another. Even if we were to determine the proper course of action for these individuals on the island (assuming that is even possible), we would not find answers to our current questions; instead, we would merely formulate yet another concept (construct or approach).
But let us return to the example. The arriving family brings with it something more than just their needs relative to the person already established on the island. The newcomers might become a living, genuine “Other” to the original inhabitant—and an “Other” in the broadest sense: they might include attractive women of childbearing age, or bearers of knowledge that could enhance survival.
From this, I would surmise that in such a situation, the original inhabitant would likely be eager to show the ropes, share information, help the newcomers settle in, and give away as much of their own possessions as possible. The issue of defining boundaries and precisely dividing resources would hardly be pressing where there is an abundance for everyone and where cooperative labor makes life easier.
Furthermore, many participants in this thread speak—in one way or another—of the “right of the strong,” or of the idea that “rights” are merely a human construct with no independent existence. I do not dispute this; indeed, I believe that trying to identify a single central principle is a common mental trap that plagues researchers. Concepts such as multiplicity and irreducibility to a single cause are what might (perhaps) bring us closer to understanding. Rights are a pure construct. Yet, it somehow constantly emerges spontaneously—initially as unwritten, accepted norms, before eventually taking on a written form and becoming mandatory (for everyone or for specific groups). From this, I would argue that while law is indeed a construct—and the written will of the ruling class, as Marx put it—it nonetheless evolves alongside us. In some contexts, it becomes an ideal that generates its own implications (presumably where it has persisted for generations), whereas in others, it is merely in the process of being created…
These are all highly complex issues. They require a careful, layered approach—avoiding logical leaps and refraining from extrapolating conclusions drawn in one context to entirely different phenomena. This is precisely the domain of the philosophy of law. And most importantly: at the end of your philosophical deliberations, you must draft a normative document that, if adopted, will become universally binding. It is crucial to think this through carefully—because if you make a mistake, people will simply shoot each other.
And, as I have observed on this forum, this specialized branch of philosophy holds little interest for the majority of its members. It is far easier to simply toss out slogans and reduce everything to simplistic assertions.
That was a fairly long post to provide absolutely no conclusion at all. The quote you are replying to contains -
" “entirely legitimate” when it was acquired." But I am not sure how one “legitimately” comes to possess and own an island because they were shipwrecked on that parcel of land, but anyway,
“exclusive control”.
Now, where is this “entirely legitimate” and “exclusive control” come from, exactly? In other words, who provided these two things, exactly?
Once more, ‘laws’, which contain ‘rights’, are just human-made constructs, usually provided to “oneself” and a select few others only.
Whereas, ‘universal Lore and Rights’ is a completely whole other issue.
One can be justified, whereas the other cannot. And, if anyone needs to be informed of which one is which, then this is how ‘far behind’ human beings had regressed.
In answering your question, I did not intend to offer any sort of definitive conclusion; rather, my response was aimed at the way the question was framed and the dichotomy you proposed.
I did not intend for my answer to resolve the issue within the framework of that constructed dichotomy, as I consider it narrow and reductionist given the nature of the relationships in question.
What is ‘the question’ that you are referring to here, exactly?
I see no point in continuing this dialogue.
1 Like
Okay, fair enough. The fact that it was not ‘my question’ it would be wise for you to discontinue.
I am not saying that what Locke said is true, but we are talking about “rights” in the sense discussed them. Talking about legal rights would be off-topic.
Do you think that if the claims granted by rights are revisable that undermines their very purpose.
Is the point of rights to provide you with certainty that the commitments you enter into will be honoured. I am saying this partly as devils advocate as its an often advanced as an argument for inalienable claims to property.
If I invest my time in acquiring a property how would I know whether in 10 years time there is still enough to go around.
I don’t disagree now but I misunderstood the question that was asked. If that’s the question, then we could also answer “humans will judge what rights are” no need for any “God”.
1 Like
The only way people could have ‘property rights’ is through human-made up laws and legality.
If you’re talking about ‘property (legal) rights’ then sure. If you are talking about ‘property (moral) rights’ then obviously no.
In regards to ‘property’ there are no ‘moral rights’. Nothing can be ‘owned’ as ‘property’ other than through human-made up laws and legality.
Can you name a ‘property (moral) right’?
Of course. More or less.
There is a profound difference between looking at the world and deciding what is the case, and looking at the world and deciding what to do about it. In the former, we change what we say to match the way things are. In the latter, we change the way things are to match what we say.
We don’t find what we ought do, we decide what we ought do.
And that’s what is behind not being able to derive an ought from an is, or get right from a stone.
The conventions of private property work fairly well, within certain limits.
Human rights require an ongoing commitment and effort on our part. If you want to have your own property, you have to convince others that it is OK.
1 Like
That’s a position you can take. I don’t know if it’s popular or not; I personally find it a respectable position given the challenges of establishing a fully coherent conception of property rights.
But this means that the legal property rights have no moral backing. So, taking someone’s stuff would presumably be morally fine, although it could lead to legal troubles. And those legal troubles might even be immoral given that the original thief (in the legal sense) was not. Or it might not, because morality isn’t real anyway.
There is only one so-called ‘ought’ in morality, a universal Lore. There are, however, many 'oughts’in legal laws.
Just more human-made up legal laws.
Which they clearly do not.
Again, people cannot ‘morally’ own stuff. So, from the very beginning there is no such thing as “someone’s stuff”. Except, of course, through human-made up laws. Which, again, made up by the ones who ‘want stuff’, and a few of their mates.
Why do you believe ‘morality’ is not real?
What is ‘morality’ to you, exactly?