The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, it's an instinct. I don't feel that instinct strongly, and certainly not strongly enough that I think it's good social policy. I'm not defending that I don't have sympathy for the position, I just don't.

The person who wants to punish also wants to spend my money in order to punish. Because of that, I object to the idea.

Compare that to the position I have where if you're going to let someone go, then a rehabilitation program should be judged on its ability to not only prevent recidivism but also allow a person to participate in our society. Not because I feel it is morally correct, because I think it is wise. I want to spend my money that way, and I would prefer others as well, if only because I think it is the best outcome for everyone involved

Conversely, if you're not going to let someone go, I think it is best to treat them humanely. Not for any specific logical reason, but because I think it is the right thing to do. And yeah, it means that there are some scenarios that mean that people are spending money they don't want to see spent.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To the extent human rights exist they *must* come from humanity. If humanity doesn't enforce them or wakes up tomorrow and decides something isn't a right, there's nothing else in the universe that will say otherwise.

Absent human origin any "right" a person has no apparent distinction from other arbitrarily chosen matter in the universe. Our own history is evidence that "inalienable human rights", granted by God supposedly or anything else, turn out to be pretty alienable after all with enough force. Enslavement, killing people not involved in a conflict (or even if they are), forcibly taking property without any basis...these have all been practiced throughout history and continue in some areas of the world today. If their rights were inalienable, reality seems to have made a strong counter argument.

As humans if we want to live in a world where these rights exist it is up to us to enforce them.

 

[Berzerker]

To the extent human rights exist they *must* come from humanity. If humanity doesn't enforce them or wakes up tomorrow and decides something isn't a right, there's nothing else in the universe that will say otherwise.

Absent human origin any "right" a person has no apparent distinction from other arbitrarily chosen matter in the universe. Our own history is evidence that "inalienable human rights", granted by God supposedly or anything else, turn out to be pretty alienable after all with enough force. Enslavement, killing people not involved in a conflict (or even if they are), forcibly taking property without any basis...these have all been practiced throughout history and continue in some areas of the world today. If their rights were inalienable, reality seems to have made a strong counter argument.

As humans if we want to live in a world where these rights exist it is up to us to enforce them.

Then why accuse people of violating human rights if their victims have no rights?

 

[El_Machinae]

Also, you are going to have a much easier time convincing other people that human rights are a good idea if you have a history successfully supporting them.

When the AI takes over it's going to be able to point out that we never believed been protecting Sapient organisms, so why should it?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Then why accuse people of violating human rights if their victims have no rights?

Sometimes, there is disagreement over what kind of actions are allowable.

In stable societies, this is resolved with discussion and law for most common rights disagreements. In places where that fails you usually see it resolved with force.

It is still humans creating and enforcing the rights.

When the AI takes over it's going to be able to point out that we never believed been protecting Sapient organisms, so why should it?

One hopes that whoever ultimately manages to program a general AI isn't that incompetent, but we'll see I suppose.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Human rights are a product of universal agreement among humans.

In other words, they are a desirable fiction.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, they tend to be the rights that people when they're sitting around coffee will agree that they should all have. If they think that others shouldn't have the right, it's not a universal human right. We tend to disagree on what should be Universal.

People who believe that some rights should be forfeitable often are failing to assume that false convictions can occur. So just get them to rethink things based on the understanding that false convictions happen

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The thing that makes it fiction is the universal agreement. If "we should all have the right to personal security and not face threats from each other to our life or health" is agreed to by T-1, where T is the entire human population, then it is not a universal agreement, so it is not reliable as a "right." That one person who doesn't agree could come along popping heads at any time.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, we give up other people's human rights as soon as we're hungry.

You need to be well fed before you will agree with a group on a set of universal rights, and even then a certain percentage of people have aberrant thinking who will not actually agree.

In general, I find that Universal human rights are easy to name and agree upon. Very, very hard to enforce. It's hard to get the financing to enforce it, it's hard to get people to agree that they should be enforced

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

You're not actually defending that position here, just restating it a few times and then saying you believe it strongly.

Well, it's a core intuition, it only needs to be defended against a specific attack. For example, someone might say, hey, since the universe is determined (plus some amount of randomness – I’ll just say determined for shorthand), we are all essentially robots without free will, so it therefore follows that someone couldn’t be morally responsible, and thus retribution doesn’t make any sense.

Then I would defend it by saying I don’t think whether the universe is determined or not has any barring on whether I think someone is morally responsible. When I say someone is morally responsible, I mean they made a conscious decision to do something, without being coerced or manipulated, and with their mental capacities functioning. Those are the criteria for me that make someone responsible. Not “authored oneself into existence” or “lives in a determined universe”. Those don’t factor into the equation of moral responsibility for me.

Yeah, it's an instinct. I don't feel that instinct strongly, and certainly not strongly enough that I think it's good social policy. I'm not defending that I don't have sympathy for the position, I just don't.

The person who wants to punish also wants to spend my money in order to punish. Because of that, I object to the idea.

Compare that to the position I have where if you're going to let someone go, then a rehabilitation program should be judged on its ability to not only prevent recidivism but also allow a person to participate in our society. Not because I feel it is morally correct, because I think it is wise. I want to spend my money that way, and I would prefer others as well, if only because I think it is the best outcome for everyone involved

Conversely, if you're not going to let someone go, I think it is best to treat them humanely. Not for any specific logical reason, but because I think it is the right thing to do. And yeah, it means that there are some scenarios that mean that people are spending money they don't want to see spent.

I see, that makes sense to me. My ideas about retribution being true and just do depend on it being interpersonal, at least to some degree. When it comes to the state, retribution starts making less sense to me. Unless the victim has a say in the process. With restorative justice we might be able to meet your goals and mine. A real win win. Although the scope of what it actually covers is quite limited, but that might just go to show we need to drastically reduce incarcerations and cases of non-violent drug offenses.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, we give up other people's human rights as soon as we're hungry.

You need to be well fed before you will agree with a group on a set of universal rights, and even then a certain percentage of people have aberrant thinking who will not actually agree.

In general, I find that Universal human rights are easy to name and agree upon. Very, very hard to enforce. It's hard to get the financing to enforce it, it's hard to get people to agree that they should be enforced

That's the paradox. If they were actually universal rights they wouldn't have to be enforced because there would not be those people not agreeing (hence universal). The problem is that a right doesn't actually require enforcement, it just requires respect...or it flat out doesn't exist. What we have, and mistakenly call rights, are just the things we can seize and defend.

 

[El_Machinae]

But they are easier to seize and defend if we convince people we should think of them as universal! It's a framing victory

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You could have "enforced universal rights", but they would look like something we don't observe in reality. Stuff like people failing to kill each other because any time they consider it their will just gets destroyed without exception, or any time someone is at risk of dying from thirst they get water somehow with literally no known exceptions. If humans had a right following such a pattern it could reasonably be theorized as "universal", despite "something" enforcing it.

Those rights don't exist, but it's at least possible to visualize what they might look like if they did exist.

What we have, and mistakenly call rights, are just the things we can seize and defend.

People claim rights beyond what they can seize and defend frequently. They don't get those things regardless.

Rights for things that are successfully seized and defended do tend to be accompanied by virtue signaling though. Apparently this confers at least some advantage in terms of reducing the number of opponents.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If I had to have a yatch-mouth and womb-brain I'd give her preseeent-arms! heels too.

Kerrigan MOVES on those heels bwoy! Especially once you get the speed upgrade and the dash attack upgrade... she works those heels like nobody's business

 

[Berzerker]

Sometimes, there is disagreement over what kind of actions are allowable.

In stable societies, this is resolved with discussion and law for most common rights disagreements. In places where that fails you usually see it resolved with force.

It is still humans creating and enforcing the rights.

We're not creating them, they're a product of existence. Neither I nor 'society' created your moral claim (right) against us murdering you, if we did, we could murder you...morally. Was it immoral for the Nazis to murder people? If yes, what if they disagreed? Are you wrong or are they wrong? You both cant be right. If rights are created or denied by society, how can the Nazis be wrong?

A right is a valid claim to the moral high ground, it exists even if the claimant is murdered or enslaved by anyone else, including society.

That's the paradox. If they were actually universal rights they wouldn't have to be enforced because there would not be those people not agreeing (hence universal). The problem is that a right doesn't actually require enforcement, it just requires respect...or it flat out doesn't exist. What we have, and mistakenly call rights, are just the things we can seize and defend.

The right is universal because everyone will defend themselves from attackers. Murderers obviously dont respect the right to life of their victims, but murderers will defend themselves from attack too. Murder is an aberration, self defense is universal.

 

[Lexicus]

For example, someone might say, hey, since the universe is determined (plus some amount of randomness – I’ll just say determined for shorthand), we are all essentially robots without free will, so it therefore follows that someone couldn’t be morally responsible, and thus retribution doesn’t make any sense.

How about "to err is human, to forgive divine"?

The right is universal because everyone will defend themselves from attackers. Murderers obviously dont respect the right to life of their victims, but murderers will defend themselves from attack too. Murder is an aberration, self defense is universal.

Did you know that animals defend themselves too?

 

[Berzerker]

Did you know that animals defend themselves too?

Yes, I said that several pages ago to show that self defense is universal and not created by society

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

How about "to err is human, to forgive divine"?

That wouldn't undermined moral responsibility at all. In fact, one could argue that moral responsibility is required for forgiveness to be a valid concept in the first place.

Yes, I said that several pages ago

whoosh

 

[El_Machinae]

I see, that makes sense to me. My ideas about retribution being true and just do depend on it being interpersonal, at least to some degree. When it comes to the state, retribution starts making less sense to me. Unless the victim has a say in the process. With restorative justice we might be able to meet your goals and mine. A real win win. Although the scope of what it actually covers is quite limited, but that might just go to show we need to drastically reduce incarcerations and cases of non-violent drug offenses.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of some of the theory of restorative justice. But, insofar as I approve of it, I am perceiving the rehabilitative benefits. The family may 'want' punishment, but my goal (as an armchair policy wonk) is the reduced likelihood of recidivism coupled with the decreased costs.

To ignore that some people want justice would be madness, if the win/win can happen. An incredible portion of convicted people have that same urge and would understand a system that respects it. I just don't think we should be beholden to that urge. But again, it's because I don't really sympathize with it.

 

[Berzerker]

whoosh

I'm not much for reading minds so if you can flesh that out it would be helpful