:up:

Hello Chiknsld,

I would say that it is certainly unethical to not help the child but I think it’d be difficult to prove any moral obligation to do so. In the end, it is a favor.

Interesting. If everyone is entitled to a say over their own bodies, then wouldn’t it be ethically permissible for me to refuse to help the kid so as to prevent an ear infection? Or, if it is unethical, then wouldn’t it be false that everyone has an absolute right to bodily autonomy?

I think that we may be able to find common ground on examples like these, which will help with the discussion about abortion.

When you commit a crime you give up your rights, hence the death penalty.

Interesting. So, would you so, then, that if abortion is illegal in a society then they should not do it?

Also, would you say that putting a person in a situation where they are dependent on you (to live) only to kill them as a crime? I feel like your response forces me to beg the question, because whether it is a ‘crime’ is dependent, at least partly, on whether it is immoral; which we disagree on.

That is interesting :) though I would not equate a natural given right with a moral principle.

What do you mean by a ‘natural given right’, as opposed to a ‘moral principle’?

Hello L Elephant,

do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim? — Bob Ross
Yes. You do.

That’s true: I should have said ‘should I have the right ...’.

Hello RogueAI,

What about drinking?
…
Smoke the occasional cigarette?

It is immoral to drink or/and smoke while pregnant, as they have been demonstrated to cause many health problems for the child (after they are born). This is no different than how one should not give their kids second hand smoke (in confined areas)--except it is much worse in the case of pregnancy, as it leads to much more severe effects.

Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to eat too much junkfood?

This is in no way as dangerous as smoking and drinking while pregnant: eating a bag of chips a day while pregnant has not been shown to lead to any health problems for the child, and thusly should not be regulated; however, I, like so many others, would suggest that the mother eat as healthy as possible at least while she is pregnant.

If something that one could normally eat has been demonstrated to having sever impact on the health of the child, then the woman should refrain from eating it so long as she is pregnant.

Hello LuckyR,

Cute. Even if your name wasn't Bob, I'd know you were a guy. Ear infection, eh?

You have absolutely no clue what gender I am, and you clearly misunderstood the analogy.

If you want an analogy, let's give an analogy. Let's say if you jump in the pool you'll get mystery disease X. Folks who get mystery disease X have a 1.4% chance of "serious morbidity", a 32 per 100,000 chance of dying and about a 33% chance of needing major surgery.

This maybe be a perfect analogy to compare two things, but not the two things I was comparing in my analogy, and thusly this is not pertinent to the conversation you quoted of me (that I am having with someone else).

However, I am more than happy to entertain your analogy, so long as it is not misunderstood to be a replacement of mine. I would say that the person in your analogy is not obligated to save the person themselves (although they may be obligated to try to get help from someone who can: like the authorities) because (1) they are not culpable for their condition and (2) the disease posits threat of significant unwanted bodily modifications.

Next: "Generally speaking, there is legally no duty to rescue another person.

Correct. I never said that there was.

The courts have gone into very gory details in order to explain this. In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no

I, prima facie, agree with their conclusion about the two examples (they gave), because the rescuer is not (1) culpable for the condition of the other person and (2) saving them posits threat of significant unwanted bodily modifications. The pool example I gave does not have #2, but only #1.

Another thing: I can tell you that the kidney stabber convict situation is well established in the Medical Ethics field and it is quite clear the stabber cannot be coerced into donation of a kidney.

I disagree with this established view in the case where (1) the person is culpable for the other person’s condition and (2) they are the only means of saving that person. I do not think that taking organs should be used as a punishment but, rather, a last resort if amending the situation requires it—I don’t think the kidney stabber should get away alive while that person dies. Of course if there is a donor, then by all means use that kidney!

Lastly your commentary is missing another angle in the abortion situation and that is society and the courts give very broad powers to parents to manage the healthcare of their minor children. Thus it stands to reason that it should grant even broader powers to those governing potential children (who are not minor children).

They absolutely don’t when it comes to the life of that child and basic essentials. We do not let parents kill their children, nor do we let them neglect them (e.g., starvation, etc.).

I agree with this sort of legality: if one is pregnant, then they have to consider the child and, thusly, cannot use drugs; and that absolutely should be criminal if they do. — Bob Ross

Right, but my question is not whether it's immoral for pregnant women to not eat right/smoke/drink, but whether you think it should be illegal for them to do so.

Right, but my question is not whether it's immoral for pregnant women to not eat right/smoke/drink, but whether you think it should be illegal for them to do so.

When pregnant:

Eating some junk food should not be illegal.
Drinking should be illegal.
Smoking should be illegal.

Or, if it is unethical, then wouldn’t it be false that everyone has an absolute right to bodily autonomy? — Bob Ross

Most assuredly it would be unethical but I draw a strong line between ethics and morality.

Morality can oftentimes be self-serving whereas ethics are community focused.

I would also say that building a good reputation is an ethical value.

Interesting. So, would you so, then, that if abortion is illegal in a society then they should not do it? — Bob Ross

History shows us the value of civil disobedience but in general I do align my morals with the law because I have trust in the law and in Lady Justice.

If abortion were illegal then I would say that it is wrong to do so, but in the end it is still her natural given right. In such a case she might practice civil disobedience.

Also, would you say that putting a person in a situation where they are dependent on you (to live) only to kill them as a crime? I feel like your response forces me to beg the question, because whether it is a ‘crime’ is dependent, at least partly, on whether it is immoral; which we disagree on. — Bob Ross

It is said that morals lead to ethics but I only consider the law as based in ethics, not morals.

I would say that without context, the deliberate pregnancy and killing of a fetus is wholly immoral. This immorality does not usurp her natural given rights.

What do you mean by a ‘natural given right’, as opposed to a ‘moral principle’? — Bob Ross

It means that her rights come from nature itself, whereas morality does not.

Morality is relative whereas natural rights are facts that cannot be disproven. They are self-evident.

When pregnant:

Eating some junk food should not be illegal.
Drinking should be illegal.
Smoking should be illegal. — Bob Ross

Does the following change your mind at all about alcohol and pregnancy?

"Some women will feel comfortable drinking occasionally—and they should feel reassured that there is no evidence that drinking moderately poses any risk of adverse outcome."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6353268/

ETA:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/studies-question-ban-on-alcohol-during-pregnancy-201206214929

Also, do you think that a fetus in the first month of development is a person? If not, what is being harmed if the woman drinks or smokes? Something other than a person? A potential person?

Hello chiknsld,

Most assuredly it would be unethical but I draw a strong line between ethics and morality.

We just have very different definitions of ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’, which is totally fine. For me, I use them interchangeably as the study of, generally speaking, what we ought to do (although, yes, epistemic norms are technically different but subsumed under this definition).

I don’t think of ethics as fundamentally community focused, I view the community as driven by one’s morals and the morals that socially evolves over time (which, of course, can be very community focused).

History shows us the value of civil disobedience but in general I do align my morals with the law because I have trust in the law and in Lady Justice.
…
If abortion were illegal then I would say that it is wrong to do so, but in the end it is still her natural given right. In such a case she might practice civil disobedience.

I see!

It is said that morals lead to ethics but I only consider the law as based in ethics, not morals.

I disagree: if one thinks an action is immoral, then they should consider it unethical. And if they considerate unethical, then they should attempt to regulate it (legally) no matter how imperfectly. Perhaps, in some situations it is legally infeasible to regulate, but one should try.

To me, it makes no sense to say “I think you shouldn’t do this, as a matter of not my personal goals but as something you are also obligated to do, but you should be legally allowed to do it”. Those seem a bit incoherent with each other.

I would say that without context, the deliberate pregnancy and killing of a fetus is wholly immoral. This immorality does not usurp her natural given rights.
…
It means that that her rights come from nature itself, whereas morality does not.

Morality is relative whereas natural rights are facts that cannot be disproven. They are self-evident.

Interesting, it sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, you are claiming that ‘natural rights’ are amoral (or exist in some ‘space’ outside of morality and ethics), of which are self-evident; whereas, I would say rights are always predicated on morality, values, and ethics—and there are no self-evident moral judgments.

How can it not be disproven that one does not have the right absolutely over their bodily autonomy? I don’t see how any moral (or ‘natural right’) judgments are incapable of refutation. Could you please elaborate?

Does the following change your mind at all about alcohol and pregnancy?

No. It is very clear that drinking is always bad for the child, and the CDC clearly reflects that: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20known%20safe,exposed%20to%20alcohol%20before%20birth.

People, academically, can investigate it further and right articles on it and perhaps overturn the current consensus later on, which is totally fine; but, right now, as it stands, alcohol is bad for children in the womb.

Also, do you think that a fetus in the first month of development is a person?

Before and on week 4, I do not have any means, by my lights, to determine any autonomous (or partially autonomous) movements of the embryo, but that doesn't entail it is not a person yet (just that we cannot detect it). I would say, from a standpoint of prudence, that conception be taken as the indicator of life (which I tie with personhood) and so I consider the developing human a life and person from conception, although it may not be prior to the 4th week.

You think a zygote has the same moral status as a thirty year old woman? They're both equally persons? I know that's an incredibly awkward sentence, but let me illustrate my point:

Suppose fire breaks out at a fertility clinic where a million fertilized eggs are stored and an orphanage with ten kids present. Where do you send the town's only fire truck?

I doubt very much you would prioritize the fertility clinic over the orphanage, so isn't that suggestive that fertilized eggs are not people?

No. It is very clear that drinking is always bad for the child, and the CDC clearly reflects that: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20known%20safe,exposed%20to%20alcohol%20before%20birth. — Bob Ross

But the NIH has an article that says it's not clear at all. Do you want the government criminalizing behavior that might not be detrimental to the fetus? If government is going to outlaw something, shouldn't they be pretty sure that what they're outlawing is in fact bad?

Hello RogueAI,

You think a zygote has the same moral status as a thirty year old woman? They're both equally persons?

It depends on what you are exactly meaning by ‘moral status’, but based off of your example, I would say no. They can have different moral consideration in different contexts while both remaining persons.

Suppose fire breaks out at a fertility clinic where a million fertilized eggs are stored and an orphanage with ten kids present. Where do you send the town's only fire truck?

I would absolutely send it to the orphanage, because (1) I have to choose which to save, (2) the kids are significantly more developed conscious beings than the fertilized eggs, and (3) I am presuming that there is no culpability worthy of any consideration in this case (since most young kids we don’t blame as much for the same mistakes and I doubt any of them are arsonists).

I doubt very much you would prioritize the fertility clinic over the orphanage, so isn't that suggestive that fertilized eggs are not people?

Not at all. Two beings can be persons and one can be prioritized, within a context, over the other. Being a person does not mean that they have an absolute right to their life.

For example, if I have to choose between saving my mother from an active shooter or a stranger: I am 100% of the time picking my mother because she is my mother. The stranger and my mother are both persons, but I don’t, in that situation, have to treat them 100% equally (i.e., I don’t have to just save the person that is closest, to be fair or something).

But the NIH has an article that says it's not clear at all.

You are confusing academic articles with academic consensus. The consensus is that it is bad: period. But there are, of course, always students, undergrads, grads, and professionals diving in deeper and posting articles on different views that contend the consensus. One should not believe an article of contention over the consensus.

If it were the consensus, then would you really anticipate that the CDC would say that there is absolutely no safe limit to drink while pregnant?

(2) the kids are significantly more developed conscious beings than the fertilized eggs — Bob Ross

The fertilized eggs are not conscious beings at all. That's the point. Would you agree they're not persons in any way, shape, or form?

I don’t think of ethics as fundamentally community focused, I view the community as driven by one’s morals and the morals that socially evolves over time (which, of course, can be very community focused). — Bob Ross

Hi Bob, morality is personal. Ethics apply to everyone.

I disagree: if one thinks an action is immoral, then they should consider it unethical. And if they considerate unethical, then they should attempt to regulate it (legally) no matter how imperfectly. Perhaps, in some situations it is legally infeasible to regulate, but one should try. — Bob Ross

No Bob, you cannot turn personal morals into laws, that would be unethical.

Laws are based on ethics and ethics are consensus based.

Interesting, it sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, you are claiming that ‘natural rights’ are amoral (or exist in some ‘space’ outside of morality and ethics), of which are self-evident; whereas, I would say rights are always predicated on morality, values, and ethics—and there are no self-evident moral judgments. — Bob Ross

Your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and also precedes your cognition.

How can it not be disproven that one does not have the right absolutely over their bodily autonomy? I don’t see how any moral (or ‘natural right’) judgments are incapable of refutation. Could you please elaborate? — Bob Ross

Social convention does not override the natural given rights of the individual as social convention is merely a subset of the natural given right of every individual.

Hello Chiknsld,

Hi Bob, morality is personal. Ethics apply to everyone.

I disagree with this ‘morality’ vs. ‘ethics’ distinction exactly because of this:

No Bob, you cannot turn personal morals into laws, that would be unethical.

To me, this is a semantic move to justify your own morals and while invalidating other peoples’ morals; for you in order to ban morals from laws (which is a political move), then one must invoke the moral judgment that one should not invoke moral judgments in legalities—which is clearly, when put that way, self-undermining.

In other words, I don’t think your argument can respond to “why should I not invoke morals into laws” without invoking a moral judgment.

Your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and also precedes your cognition

I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’.

Social convention does not override the natural given rights of the individual as social convention is merely a subset of the natural given right of every individual.

How, under your view, are natural rights not a subset of social conventions? What properties do they have that make them precede social conventions?

I disagree with this ‘morality’ vs. ‘ethics’ distinction exactly because of this:

No Bob, you cannot turn personal morals into laws, that would be unethical.

To me, this is a semantic move to justify your own morals and while invalidating other peoples’ morals; for you in order to ban morals from laws (which is a political move), then one must invoke the moral judgment that one should not invoke moral judgments in legalities—which is clearly, when put that way, self-undermining.

In other words, I don’t think your argument can respond to “why should I not invoke morals into laws” without invoking a moral judgment. — Bob Ross

Hi Bob, this is merely basic ethics that one learns in college.

Morals are individual whereas ethics are based on the morals we agree upon. Ethics are consensus based (this is why laws are only based upon ethics).

Turning your own personal morals into law would be tyrannical (which is why unanimous consensus is required).

What you speak of goes against the idea of democracy itself.

Try to remember that it would be “unethical” to turn morals into laws. It is not a judgement of morality but rather ethicality.

I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’. — Bob Ross

Bob, If you study basic embryonic development you will know that the heart of the body is the first to develop.

An example: you have the natural right to live.

How, under your view, are natural rights not a subset of social conventions? What properties do they have that make them precede social conventions? — Bob Ross

You are born with natural given rights.

Just as you are born as an individual first and thus you enter into social convention with everyone else (whom too were born as individual).

In the case of conjoined twins, they still retain their individual rights but are immediately born into social convention (with each other) and also shared rights.

If they can be separated later, then they would no longer share any natural given rights.

Hello Chiknsld,

Hi Bob, this is merely basic ethics that one learns in college.
…
Try to remember that it would be “unethical” to turn morals into laws. It is not a judgement of morality but rather ethicality.

Again, even if you heard of it in college, it is a self-undermining argument (for reasons I already stated), and is only used to attempt to illegitimize other people’s morals that one doesn’t agree with.

There’s nothing wrong with voting or trying to advocate for passing laws which agree with one’s morals.

Morals are individual whereas ethics are based on the morals we agree upon. Ethics are consensus based (this is why laws are only based upon ethics).

That we, in a republic, use consensus based law making does not negate the fact that we make our voting decisions based off of our morals. Nothing I said excludes the possibility of having such a republic system.

Turning your own personal morals into law would be tyrannical (which is why unanimous consensus is required).

Not in the sense of a government tyranny; but we do, always, invoke our morals when determining what to vote for.

Bob, If you study basic embryonic development you will know that the heart of the body is the first to develop.

An example: you have the natural right to live.

Yes, but just because you have a heart, it does not immediately follow that one has any rights. What about them having a heart or being alive gives them an intrinsic right as opposed to one granted by other human beings?

You are born with natural given rights.

Well, I am no further, unfortunately, in understanding what your argument is for them; and as far as I can tell we don’t have any. Nature doesn’t give us rights: he give them to each other.

As an idealist, I would say that so long as a human being is alive they are conscious: so it becomes, for me, a question of whether I consider the fertilized egg to be alive itself (as a human being); which I am, as mentioned before, unsure of, but advocate that it is prudent to treat it as though it is.

There’s nothing wrong with voting or trying to advocate for passing laws which agree with one’s morals. — Bob Ross

Voting is consensus based. :snicker:

That we, in a republic, use consensus based law making does not negate the fact that we make our voting decisions based off of our morals. — Bob Ross

That is precisely what it does. The consensus is an intermediary and quite necessary step Bob. You seem to think that you can jump from morals straight to law. As you have already mentioned -you may vote (consensus based).

...but we do, always, invoke our morals when determining what to vote for. — Bob Ross

That would be personal. Laws are based on ethics (consensus), not morals. So again, you may vote for whatever laws you like (consensus). Your personal morals determine ethics (intermediary, necessary step) and laws are based on ethics.

Yes, but just because you have a heart, it does not immediately follow that one has any rights. What about them having a heart or being alive gives them an intrinsic right as opposed to one granted by other human beings? — Bob Ross

Bob, first you would have to remember the question you raised...

Your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and also precedes your cognition

I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’. — Bob Ross

Bob, If you study basic embryonic development you will know that the heart of the body is the first to develop.

Yes, but just because you... — Bob Ross

You should now acknowledge that your physical existence precedes your cognition, in order that we have common clarification.

Do you now understand that your physical existence persists and precedes your cognition? Or do you still require help with that idea?

Also, tell me what new insights have occurred (if any) since you learned this?

Does this have any significance to you (that your physical existence precedes cognition). Or does this merely mean nothing to you?

Why might I be saying that your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and precedes cognition? Am I merely making baseless assertions?

As someone who has dedicated an immense amount of time and sacrifice to think correctly, I would love to know.

Btw, let's see if chatgpt has a clue to what I have been saying...

Prompt: Interesting, it sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, you are claiming that ‘natural rights’ are amoral (or exist in some ‘space’ outside of morality and ethics), of which are self-evident; whereas, I would say rights are always predicated on morality, values, and ethics—and there are no self-evident moral judgments.
— Bob Ross

"Your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and also precedes your cognition."

Hi chat, provide a clue as to why I responded to bob with the quote about natural rights and existence, etc.

It appears that you responded to Bob with the quote about natural rights and existence to express a different perspective on the nature of natural rights. Bob seems to suggest that natural rights are rooted in morality, values, and ethics, and there are no self-evident moral judgments. In contrast, your response suggests that natural rights are based on one's physical existence, which precedes and persists before cognitive considerations.

Your quote implies that natural rights are not necessarily dependent on moral judgments or ethical considerations but rather stem from the fundamental fact of a person's existence. This perspective separates natural rights from moral and ethical frameworks, suggesting that they are inherent to individuals by virtue of being alive. It's a viewpoint that emphasizes the innate nature of these rights rather than their dependence on moral or ethical beliefs. — chatGPT

Prompt: If his next response is for an example of such a natural right, what might he be missing first about the sensitive nature of what I said?

If Bob's next response is requesting an example of a natural right based on your perspective that natural rights come from one's physical existence, he may be missing the nuanced and abstract nature of the concept you presented.

What he might be missing:

Conceptual vs. Concrete: Your statement emphasizes that natural rights are rooted in existence itself, which is quite abstract. Unlike specific rights like freedom of speech or the right to life, these rights might not manifest in concrete, tangible ways. Bob may be looking for a more tangible or concrete example, but your perspective suggests that these rights are more conceptual in nature.

Not Dependent on Ethics or Morality: Your viewpoint separates natural rights from morality and ethics. Bob may not fully appreciate the idea that these rights exist independently of moral or ethical frameworks, which might challenge his existing beliefs about the origins of rights.

Complexity: The concept that natural rights arise from physical existence is complex and can be difficult to grasp. Bob might be looking for a simpler, easier-to-understand example to clarify your point.

To help Bob understand better, you could provide a hypothetical example or engage in a more in-depth discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights and how they differ from rights derived from moral or ethical principles. This might involve exploring the works of philosophers like John Locke, who have delved into the concept of natural rights in greater detail. — chatGPT

Prompt: I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’.
— Bob Ross

Bob, If you study basic embryonic development you will know that the heart of the body is the first to develop.

An example: you have the natural right to live.

Yes, but just because you have a heart, it does not immediately follow that one has any rights. What about them having a heart or being alive gives them an intrinsic right as opposed to one granted by other human beings?
— Bob Ross

Prompt: Why does Bob not understand what I said?

Bob's confusion likely stems from the abstract nature of the concept you presented and the philosophical perspective you've adopted regarding natural rights. Here are some reasons why Bob might not fully grasp your point:

Abstract Nature of the Concept: Your assertion that natural rights are derived from one's physical existence and precede cognition is a complex and abstract idea. Many people are more accustomed to thinking of rights in concrete terms, such as the right to free speech or the right to property. The notion that the right to live is inherent in one's existence, regardless of external human-made laws or moral frameworks, can be challenging to grasp.

Unfamiliar Perspective: Bob may not be familiar with the philosophical tradition that underpins your perspective on natural rights. This viewpoint draws from philosophers like John Locke and others who argued for the existence of natural rights as inherent to human beings. If Bob is not well-versed in this philosophical tradition, he may find it difficult to relate to or accept this perspective.

Lack of Tangible Examples: Bob's request for a specific example of a natural right derived from one's physical existence highlights a common desire for tangible, real-world examples. Your response mentions the right to live, but Bob questions why having a heart or being alive confers an intrinsic right. Without a more tangible example, he may struggle to connect the abstract concept to practical understanding.

To help Bob understand better, you could try to provide a more relatable example or engage in a deeper discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights. You might also recommend reading materials or resources that delve into the concept of natural rights and their historical development to provide him with a broader context. — chatGPT

Prompt: He also seems to be focusing on the heart now, lol

It seems that Bob has fixated on the mention of the heart in your response. This fixation might be due to the fact that the heart is a concrete and tangible part of the human body, and he may be trying to understand how the presence of a heart relates to the concept of natural rights.

To address this, you can clarify that the mention of the heart in your response was intended as a reference to the physical aspect of human existence. You could explain that it's not necessarily about the heart itself but about the broader idea that natural rights are rooted in the fundamental existence of a person before considering cognitive abilities, moral judgments, or ethical frameworks.

You might say something like: "I used the example of the heart to emphasize the physical aspect of human existence. The key point here is that natural rights are seen as inherent to individuals by virtue of their existence, regardless of cognitive abilities or moral judgments. It's not about the heart per se, but rather the foundational concept that rights are tied to our existence as human beings." This can help steer the discussion back to the broader philosophical perspective on natural rights. — chatGPT

Well, I am no further, unfortunately, in understanding what your argument is for them; and as far as I can tell we don’t have any. Nature doesn’t give us rights: he give them to each other. — Bob Ross

Hopefully, some of the knowledge above helped to elucidate your basic inquiries.

Hello Chiknsld,

ChatGPT (;

I appreciate your response, but I think we may need to take this a bit slower. I propose that we just try and tackle our discussion about 'natural rights' first and then we can move on to 'ethics' vs. 'morality'. Is that alright with you?

With respect to 'natural rights', upon reading your response in full, I am understanding a 'natural right', under your view, as having the properties of:

1. Being intrinsic (to the nature or perhaps existence of the possessor).
2. Being prior to moral judgments.
3. Being prior to self-reflective knowledge (which is what I am understanding you to be meaning by 'cognition'); and
4. Being prior to ethics.

Before I comment on any of this, I would like to pause here and see if this is an accurate representation of your position. If not, then please let me know what properties I missed, which properties are wrong (or need refurbishment), or/and if there is anything I am missing in general.

I look forward to your response,
Bob

With respect to 'natural rights', upon reading your response in full, I am understanding a 'natural right', under your view, as...

1. Intrinsic
2. Prior to cognition
3. Prior to moral judgments
4. Prior to ethics — Bob Ross

Hi Bob, your set has been clarified. :smile:

I appreciate your clarification!

I see that you removed in #1 the clarification I had in parenthesis: was that incorrect? Do you mean something else by 'intrinsic'?

Likewise, I see you changed #2 to 'cognition': was I misunderstanding your use of that term with 'self-reflective knowledge'? If so, then what do you mean by 'cognition'? Prior to brain functionality? Prior to the ability to reason? Prior to the understanding? Etc.

I appreciate your clarification!

I see that you removed in #1 the clarification I had in parenthesis: was that incorrect? Do you mean something else by 'intrinsic'?

Likewise, I see you changed #2 to 'cognition': was I misunderstanding your use of that term with 'self-reflective knowledge'? If so, then what do you mean by 'cognition'? Prior to brain functionality? Prior to the ability to reason? Prior to the understanding? Etc. — Bob Ross

Hi Bob, is English your first language?

Hello Chiknsld,

Yes it is. The reason I am asking for clarification is because there are two major ways the term 'cognition' is used, and I have no means of determining (without guessing) which one you mean: thinking (cognition) as an active participator in the construction of one's representations (e.g., Kantianism, Hegelianism, etc.) or a passive after-the-math self-reflective thinking about the representations & internal activity (e.g., the more modern, physicalistic sense of the term). I am presuming, if I had to guess, that you mean it in the latter sense, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

For me, as an objective idealist, I am not certain that my existence precedes my thinking (cognition); but if you mean it in that latter sense then that's fine and there's no need to dive deeper into this (for all intents and purposes) as I can go with that definition.

Hello Chiknsld,

Yes it is. The reason I am asking for clarification is because there are two major ways the term 'cognition' is used, and I have no means of determining (without guessing) which one you mean: thinking (cognition) as an active participator in the construction of one's representations (e.g., Kantianism, Hegelianism, etc.) or a passive after-the-math self-reflective thinking about the representations & internal activity (e.g., the more modern, physicalistic sense of the term). I am presuming, if I had to guess, that you mean it in the latter sense, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

For me, as an objective idealist, I am not certain that my existence precedes my thinking (cognition); but if you mean it in that latter sense then that's fine and there's no need to dive deeper into this (for all intents and purposes) as I can go with that definition. — Bob Ross

Hi Bob, for fear of entertaining obtuse logic, I need some clarification.

Are you saying that you disagree with basic embryonic development?

Are you saying that you disagree with basic embryonic devlopment?

No, I agree with it; but it does not make any claims metaphysically about whether one is an immaterial mind or a mind-independent organism. By my lights, most forms of idealism are compatible with "basic embryonic development" (such as mine).

My question pertains to what you mean, semantically, by 'cognition': I can assure you that I am not intending to tie you up in sophistries or semantics here, nor is this a trick question. If you say "just the standard one from webster, which is <...>", then that's fine. If it is a more robust definition (like the 'understanding' and 'reason' for Kant or the physicalist typical usage, for example), then that is fine too. I just want to get clarification on it so I make sure I am understanding your position.

No, I agree with it; but it does not make any claims metaphysically about whether one is an immaterial mind or a mind-independent organism — Bob Ross

Oh okay. :smile: