Belief in Rights is Not Dependent on Faith

[Dimmesdale]

I don't think Rights are dependent on faith. Prior to faith, is Primal Worth.... We know what we are worth, even if we think we are unworthy. There is worth alongside lack of worth. We know we have value. And, by virtue of Empathy, we know others are like us, with both value and disvalue. Hence, one does not need to appeal to belief in God, a Law-Giver, to believe in Rights. Trust in such an Authority figure is unnecessary. We can readily discern the very idea of worth. Even from the givens of our own Bodies.

[Athetotheist]

I agree that we all have intrinsic value, what you refer to as "Primal Worth", but that makes me wonder about the signature you've chosen:

"I am nothing but a speck of dust near the feet of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of Guru."

It's certainly an expression of humility to identify in such a way, but I'm curious as to how you balance such an identity with a sense of one's common worth.

[Dimmesdale]

I agree that we all have intrinsic value, what you refer to as "Primal Worth", but that makes me wonder about the signature you've chosen:

"I am nothing but a speck of dust near the feet of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of Guru."

It's certainly an expression of humility to identify in such a way, but I'm curious as to how you balance such an identity with a sense of one's common worth.

In my religion, even littleness can be worth much....

[Purple Knight]

I do think this is right, that we all know we have value even if that value is 0.

However, the important thing to wonder is, even if I believe my value is positive, if I can impose that on anyone else. I can have value to me without saying, well then, that other person is required to act as if I have value to them.

Because of this I do not think we can ground morality at all. I agree with the religious on this site who say that atheism cannot ground morality. However, adding the extra layer of "God says," doesn't do anything, and if we presuppose that he has the right to determine rights, then rights are still circular and fundamentally ungrounded.

[Dimmesdale]

I do think this is right, that we all know we have value even if that value is 0.

However, the important thing to wonder is, even if I believe my value is positive, if I can impose that on anyone else. I can have value to me without saying, well then, that other person is required to act as if I have value to them.

Because of this I do not think we can ground morality at all. I agree with the religious on this site who say that atheism cannot ground morality. However, adding the extra layer of "God says," doesn't do anything, and if we presuppose that he has the right to determine rights, then rights are still circular and fundamentally ungrounded.

Everyone is locked in their own egotism then. Fine then. If that is (or were) the case.... The fact of suicide itself is a proof of rights. A human can only bear so much. One extends some measure of Liberty to oneself always, even if one regards themselves as a piece of detritus.

[Dimmesdale]

..Lest we forget....

[Purple Knight]

Everyone is locked in their own egotism then. Fine then. If that is (or were) the case.... The fact of suicide itself is a proof of rights. A human can only bear so much. One extends some measure of Liberty to oneself always, even if one regards themselves as a piece of detritus.

It's a proof of what I call the least rights necessary to life. People are free to say someone does not have those least necessary rights but it will always result in retaliation or rebellion, and although one can define that rebellion or retaliation as unjust, it will always happen, because as you say and I fully agree, a human can only bear so much.

If rights have to be at least so practical that they have any hope of conforming with reality at all, then yes you're entirely correct.

But this is precisely why one of my big three sticking points against Christianity is that it defines everyone as sinful violators of some pie-in-the-sky order. I can't prove this is fundamentally wrong, but I still think it should be. If everyone is in violation, then your rule is wrong.

[Dimmesdale]

Everyone is locked in their own egotism then. Fine then. If that is (or were) the case.... The fact of suicide itself is a proof of rights. A human can only bear so much. One extends some measure of Liberty to oneself always, even if one regards themselves as a piece of detritus.

It's a proof of what I call the least rights necessary to life. People are free to say someone does not have those least necessary rights but it will always result in retaliation or rebellion, and although one can define that rebellion or retaliation as unjust, it will always happen, because as you say and I fully agree, a human can only bear so much.

If rights have to be at least so practical that they have any hope of conforming with reality at all, then yes you're entirely correct.

But this is precisely why one of my big three sticking points against Christianity is that it defines everyone as sinful violators of some pie-in-the-sky order. I can't prove this is fundamentally wrong, but I still think it should be. If everyone is in violation, then your rule is wrong.

Let's say a mad scientist hooks you up to a torture machine. Every five seconds, electrodes connected to your spine turn on and ignite a fire in your brain. This is actually the worst torture ever devised. The only respite you can have from this ongoing torment is if you press, with your one little finger that is free, a button which sends out a radio signal to another machine, which tortures a person in a similar fashion.

There is no way "out" of this situation. You are totally bound, hand and foot, and cannot do anything to escape, or kill yourself. But you still have the choice, with your little finger, to press the button, or not. Now, I imagine that in this scenario any reasonable person would say that this person's free will is very constrained. He or she or it, does not have much choice, it seems. Yet, the consent is there. The will to torture another random person is there. With no end in sight. One may be trapped like this for decades, going on torturing people, who subsequently die painful deaths, etc. Yes, they also die, if I haven't mentioned that before. It seems that this is a terrible thing to do, but then again, what choice do you have? The real question is, do you feel guilty about this?

I happen to believe in Karma. I believe whatever befalls a person is in some sense justified. God kills everyone in the end. He uses us as proxies to do his Will. That does not, ever, justify us in becoming vigilantes or taking justice into our own hands. We are not in authority to do whatever we please. Still, God, as the Ultimate Controller, acts through even the worst of us to fulfil various activities that need to be done. Such are the laws of Nature. That may seem ugly, but it's a fact.

At the same time, God is Merciful. God destroys Karma, after a certain point. We can be liberated from its effects. We are, essentially, not the ultimate doers of our actions. So we should leave aside guilt as much as possible, so long as it does not have a proximately direct or obvious bearing on our moral identity. That may seem hard to discern, but I don't think it is. Not anymore.

[Purple Knight]

You are totally bound, hand and foot, and cannot do anything to escape, or kill yourself. But you still have the choice, with your little finger, to press the button, or not. Now, I imagine that in this scenario any reasonable person would say that this person's free will is very constrained. He or she or it, does not have much choice, it seems. Yet, the consent is there. The will to torture another random person is there. With no end in sight. One may be trapped like this for decades, going on torturing people, who subsequently die painful deaths, etc. Yes, they also die, if I haven't mentioned that before. It seems that this is a terrible thing to do, but then again, what choice do you have? The real question is, do you feel guilty about this?

Yes, I would feel guilty. But I shouldn't. The person who set up the machine should, or no one should.