Rationality implies certain shared epistemic standards. Those standards have to be at least enduring and widespread, if not permanent and universal, or they would have no meaning. Further, they cannot be inviolate, or else they would be superfluous. It follows then that not every decision is necessarily rational.

Further, "right" is not the same as "rational." Rationality is normative, but it does not represent the full extent of normativity. — SophistiCat

Most things humans do are neither rational nor irrational, they are non-rational.

But I maintain that Natural Rights, like any right, exists only in the heads and mouths of those who are willing to confer them. He observes and reasons about human nature, derives from it a sum of acceptable behaviors, confers the right to perform these behaviors to all people, and endorses and defends them thereby. The whole project of human rights is dependent upon the rights giver, which as already intimated, is everyone. — NOS4A2

I don't disagree with this, but I would put the emphasis differently. Yours is on the tentative nature of rights, their conditionality. Mine is on my judgement that the only way to proceed morally is to act as if it were true. Philosophers do that all the time.

The more and more people believe in natural law, take it upon themselves to confer rights, the more and more we have natural rights. The less and less people do this, the less and less we have natural rights. At any rate, as soon as the natural lawyer disappears or otherwise stops conferring those rights, the rights are no longer conferred. We’ve seen this happen for instance in Germany where legal positivism became the handmaiden to Hitler’s power. Had there been some natural lawyers there I wager it would be a different story. — NOS4A2

Again, a difference in emphasis. It's important that we are committed to the fact that rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be violated, but they can't be taken away.

But the idea that man is endowed with any rights at all, inalienable or otherwise, is certainly wrong. — NOS4A2

That man is no rights holder ought to convince the natural lawyer to ditch the metaphor of nature or god as legislator and start back at the beginning. Square one: only man can legislate. Only man can confer rights. Man is not a rights holder. Rather, he is a rights giver. — NOS4A2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. — US Declaration of Independence

I think your statements that I quoted are completely right and completely wrong. It's true that rights don't enforce themselves. They are not built into the superstructure of the universe like the second law of thermodynamics. But they are built into the moral foundation of our human nature. Saying that certain human rights are unalienable is a statement of human value. It's also a commitment to stand behind those rights for everyone. In order to be fully human, we have to stand up for each other.

You're just bringing up the old justified true belief balderdash without calling it that. Pretty soon you'll get to the Gettier problem. JTB is the appendix of the philosophical world. Appendix as in that small, useless organ that is attached to our intestines. It keeps hanging around for no particular purpose and just pops up every now to cause trouble.

Having said that, I won't interrupt your thread anymore.

I think Watkins account in Confirmable and influential metaphysics the better. — Banno

I am not familiar with it. There are many approaches to metaphysics. Given my strong attachment to the views of Collingwood, what does Watkins have to offer.

I thought that it's unproveable like the simulation hypothesis because there's no way to get outside of it to know for sure. — Darkneos

I think you're right. Solipsism is like the simulation hypothesis. If you are correct that they are unprovable, and I think you are, then they're metaphysics, not science. You're fairly new here. I don't know if you've heard my metaphysics spiel, which is similar to that described by R.G. Collingwood in his "Essay on Metaphysics." Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science.

Secondly God is not ‘based on an idea’. If anything, God is reduced to an idea or a series of propositions, which then are said to have no possibility of empirical validation. But that is a kind of ‘straw God’ in that it refers mainly to the kind of God whose only presence is as a term in Internet debates. In practice belief in God is grounded in community, in tradition, and in a way of living, which opens up horizons of being in a way that mere propositional knowledge cannot. — Wayfarer

I agree with this. Atheism forces God into little boxes and then complains when the boxes don't stack neatly.

Well, there certaintly isn't any corroborable, public evidence — 180 Proof

And shared experience doesn't count? Not sure about that.

or sound arguments for "theism" (e.g. the existence of any "theistic" g/G). — 180 Proof

I probably disagree. Still thinking.

Some theists will point to personal experiences as evidence, but these experiences can be subjective and interpreted in different ways. — Thund3r

Personal experience is evidence, whether or not you find it convincing. I'm not here to make the case for theism, but saying there's no evidence is just not true. Have you had a similar personal spiritual experience, whether or not you identify it with God?

very substantial, life changing amount — Hanover

I think this would be the issue for me. If someone tried to screw me like this, I would be temped to refuse the offer unless it were a life-changing amount. Just think of the joy of vindictiveness!

joy of vindictiveness. — Hanover

Priceless.

I was thinking about this. I assume the responder is not given a chance to negotiate with the proposer. That would probably make a big difference.

I wonder if this is where the phrase "fifty-four forty or fight" came from. [lie] Little known fact - the US dollar was only valued at 94 cents back in the 1800s. [/lie]

By the same token, in writing a bad review I’m providing a service. I’m saying, it’s ok not to read this, try something wonderful instead. — Jamal

I wasn't questioning your decision to review the book, only pointing out a difference in our approach. For what its worth, I thought your evaluation was interesting and worthwhile.

I find I can’t write anything interesting about books I love, or I just don’t feel motivated to do so. — Jamal

It's the opposite for me. It's not just that I want to tell people how much I like the book, I also want to figure out for myself why I do. The reasons I don't like books are generally simpler than reasons I do. Or if not simpler, at least more obvious. To paraphrase Tolstoy - All bad books are alike; each good book is good in its own way.

Alright, it's settled. Put a notice in The Boston Globe informing hopeful recipients that they are officially shit out of luck. — BC

Thank you for this vote of confidence.

But once its more money it seems like there is too much risk. You have done some statistical analysis of your abilitiy to intuit trustworthyness. Or humans' abilities. — Bylaw

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm am framing this as a question of how much justification is needed. More money, more risk, more justification needed. In that regard, a judgement of @Aminima's trustworthiness is part of that justification.

I have lots of doubts about reparations because there are philosophical and practical difficulties. — BC

I'm agin um. They'll make things worse. Maybe even I'd resent people getting money just because of race or some other arbitrary criteria. Plenty of rich people would get reparations. Many poor people wouldn't. There'll be all sorts of fraud. Bad idea.

Depends what that really means. Does self-interest have to incorporate simply monetary gain? Keeping one's dignity can be in one's self-interest, perhaps. Viewing something as unfair and so proving that point can be in one's self-interest. — schopenhauer1

I agree. Also, for most of us, $10 is no big loss. Screwing someone who's trying to screw us is worth lots more.

You got free money, yes? You didn't earn it, but in order to keep it, you have to share it.
By offering a paltry share, you show yourself to be an avaricious and ungracious beneficiary.
The persons - including myself - who reject such an offer are showing you that uncivic-minded individuals like yourself are not welcome in our community; a dollar will not buy you acceptance. — Vera Mont

My sense of fairness is worth more that $1 or even $10. If it were $10,000, that would be a different thing. On the other hand, telling someone to go fry ice when he tries to stiff me for thousands might be worth it.

I wanted to write something about it and couldn’t do that in good conscience without reading the whole thing — Jamal

Yes, I've always thought that if I want to say something about a book, I should finish it. I rarely write negative things about books. There are so many wonderful books out there and I want to point them out to people. There are also a bunch of well-known or popular books that are very bad - either badly written, badly argued, or filled with bad ideas. I'm generally willing to let people take their chances with them. Exceptions - "The Tao of Physics" and "The God Delusion."

Although I said the book was joyless, it’s sometimes delightfully bizarre and funny. It’s not clear if any of the humour was intended, though it did feel like a satire on post-sixties sexual freedom and violence in the media, or else a parody of transgressive fiction or pornography. But judging by what the author himself has said about it, I think it’s meant to be taken very seriously indeed. — Jamal

I haven't read the book. I admire your efforts to give a fair evaluation of a book you didn't like. I would likely have been less generous. More likely, I wouldn't have finished it.

Tort law seems to tolerate a long gap between event and consequence...

...Is this a past injustice or a current injustice? — BC

Civil suits are not the same as reparations, which was what I was talking about. If a specific person was harmed in a specific way by other specific people, they can, subject to state and federal law, sue them. I don't see how that is inconsistent with the position I have taken.

I agree, but how long is "the present"? — BC

The present means now. Right here...no wait, now. No, now.... If there are people who are still living with injustice while others have unearned privilege, which you and I agree there are, those are the people for whom it should be made right. Not because of what happened 400 or 200 or 100 or 50 years ago, but because of what is happening now.

It may be another impossible moral calculation. But in terms of, par example, who is responsible for slavery, colonialism and the World wars the answer is not us who were not born then. — Andrew4Handel

I don't support payment of reparations for past behavior. It's not the injustice of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that need to be addressed. It's the ongoing unfairness and privilege that remain today.

if we have some justification to believe that P and that justification is overridden by other evidence, then we still have some justification, it's overridden. — aminima

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. [joke] It seems wrong.[/joke] We can leave it there.

I guess I would ask exactly how you have knowledge of our common sense beliefs. Is it because they are useful? because they are true? — aminima

Are you saying that things that seem to be true as you've been discussing them are common sense beliefs? I don't think seeming and common sense are the same thing. I think common sense reflects our intuition. I don't think intuition is seeming either.

I'm having a hard time seeing how "seeming" equals belief. can you explain more?

I see belief and seeming are separate things. for example, in the The Ponzo Illusion it seems to me like the lines are different lengths, but I believe the lines are the same length. in this case, seeming and belief are two completely different things. — aminima

That doesn't make sense to me. If something seems like it's true, but we know based on evidence, or at least believe strongly, that it's not, do you really propose that we have "at least some justification for believing that P."

is this principle a good one? I think so because it's a simple response to skepticism. — aminima

I've been called and called myself a pragmatist. The pragmatic approach to skepticism is to do the best you can with an understanding of the uncertainties of your knowledge and the risks of being wrong. What more is needed?

it's important to note that "seems" and "seeming" here does not mean belief, and does not mean an inclination toward, or a feeling, it's an experience one has when one thinks of a statement. someone experiences that a statement seems true to them, just like someone experiences that an apple seems to be in front of them. — aminima

You say seeming does not mean belief, but it does. It's just a belief for which you don't have very good justification. Things seem plausible. Seem possible. Seem likely. Don't seem unlikely. That's just intuition - knowledge for which you have uncertain justification.

As with all justification, it all comes down to the consequences of being wrong. Is your justification adequate for the risk involved? Should I lend Aminima $5? Sure, they seem honest. Should I lend Aminima $10,000? I'll have to think about that.

Ethical judgements are more than just emotional reactions but you are treating them the same in your argument. — DingoJones

I haven't been making an argument. I've been expressing an opinion. Describing my feelings. That's all I intended to do.

I disagree. Anything can be justified with “emotional judgements”, therefore it is a poor metric for justification. — DingoJones

In this particular case, I don't need any more justification. It's an ethical question and I am using my ethical judgement, which includes emotional reactions. If I were trying to convince someone, I'd have to provide more, but I'm not and I don't.

Ok, but if you aren’t sure what a person is how can you know a corpse is still a person?
Aren’t you basing a conclusion (a corpse is a person) on something you aren’t able to even define (what a person is)?
At the very least it seems to me you should be no more confident that a corpse is a person than you are confident what a person is…no? — DingoJones

I acknowledge my reasons for objecting to using people in a vegetative state for gestation are based on emotional judgements, not rational ones. Is there anything wrong with that? Answer - no.

Do you feel the same way about opt out organ donation? — fdrake

No. That seems fine to me. I don't see that as inconsistent with my position on WBGD. Part of it is that I do see organ donation as vitally important.

Maybe. How do you define “person”? — DingoJones

I'm not sure exactly. Obviously, any living human being. Dead human beings? Not sure. Self-aware non-human beings? I'm not sure.

If hypothetically WBGD would be possible with a deceased body, would that change your mind about whether it's permissable? — Tzeentch

I'm against WBGD under almost any circumstances. No, I don't know what circumstances would make it ok. As I noted, that's not based on any facts, only on values.

Human and person are not interchangeable, are you wanting to say the braindead are human or persons? I would say they obviously human, but not a person. — DingoJones

I understand the distinction you are making between human and person. I meant to say "person" in the same sense you are using it. You and I disagree about whether or not people in a vegetative state are people. That's a matter of value, not fact.

why is WBGD devaluing people by treating them as a means to an end, but organ donation isn't? — fdrake

The quick answer is because it feels that way to me. So what's the longer, more considered answer?....I guess the question is why do I feel that way. I guess it's because the person looks just like a normal person who is asleep, unconscious, or comatose. The look like a person. They breath. Their heart beats. I think devaluing their humanity devalues all the rest of ours too, which is a dangerous thing for a society to do except, as I said, for something vitally important.

A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity... In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity. — Jack Cummins

I agree with this, but I don't think we only need a stable sense of self for philosophical purposes. We, at least I, need the platform of a consistent, reliable self to live our lives in a satisfying way.

Even if they are brain dead? Still a person? — DingoJones

What is considered a person is something that changes over time. Historically, foreign or primitive people have sometimes been considered less worthy of personhood than others. More recently, the idea of personhood has sometimes been stretched to include non-human animals. As I see it, we get to choose what we consider human. For me, people in a persistent vegetative state are still human. I think it's best for all of us if we see things that way unless there are vitally important reasons not to. I don't see providing surrogates for gestating babies as vitally important.

Aye. It's a sickening and horrifying idea. Though neither of those things mean it's wrong. — fdrake

Ultimately perhaps the referenced argument by Ber is stronger, but likely to be even more repugnant - the donor body isn't dead, it's in a persistent vegetative state. — fdrake

As I think about it more, what makes it sickening to me is also why I think it's, if not wrong, at least wrongheaded. Say what you will, my body is me. All those bodies in a persistent vegetative state are still people. I think it hurts us to act as if that isn't true. Treating people as means to an end devalues them individually and people in general. I don't get that same feeling from organ donation.

So. These are people. Show them respect. Don't use them. If that seems idealistic or romantic, I'm ok with that.

This is a really good discussion with a good opening post, even though I don't understand much of it. You're trying to trick me into learning about Schopenhauer.

I agree that in this case, it not worth our time to get 'bogged' down in discussion about the different contextual meanings between 'opinion' and 'taste.' — universeness

You can't fool me. You're pretending to agree with me, all the while trying to get me involved in a discussion about the words. It won't work.

To some extent the various terms are synonymons which depending on usage may be used to speak about the nature of inner experiences. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and I do think that these will differ from person to person. I'm sure the ways I use these words as described in my previous post won't always match how others feel.

Self is useful but it may appeal to the 'me' of egocentricism and in the context of individualism, and even the narcissistic aspect of seeing oneself in the mirror of others' perceptions in a social context. — Jack Cummins

I'm an American with the usual load of self-regard, but I think my understanding of my own experience, my self, provides a pretty stable platform from which to look out over reality without being rigid. If that makes any sense.

Well, that's just your opinion on the matter of individual taste! — universeness

I guess we could have a discussion on the meanings of "taste" and "opinion." Let's not and leave things where they are.