1751 réponses à ce sujet

[dm3565]

Rights as we*and even Jefferson* understand them are a legal,social and moral construct*which of course will vary from nation and person to person*

 

The only natural right is that of the strongest.

Oh dear...

 

Look, without getting too far into a discussion on metaphysics, there's about 2,500 years of philosophy you're going to have to catch up on, since you're just recapitulating Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. But that view having regained currency is probably a result of William of Ockham in the 14th century, though a good chunk of the blame also goes to Descartes, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and others, filtered more recently through Derrida, Foucault, and the like. The sum of it is that most people don't have an understanding of what someone like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides meant by "nature," which was a metaphysical term inextricably linked with teleology, and not referring to physics and chemistry, or trees and fuzzy animals.  In that respect, Daoist, Confucian, Hindu, and Buddhist philosophers had/have similar concepts.

 

As for Jefferson, I find it an open question as to whether he was following the Lockean notion of "natural rights" as self-ownership, which is the line that Rothbard, Rawls, and Nozick follow, or whether he was using the older Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of natural rights, by way of Richard Hooker, by way of Locke (who was strongly influenced by Hooker). In either case, natural rights mean those rights possessed by a human being by virtue of being human, while civil or legal rights are those rights granted by law. English Common Law jurisdictions still make this distinction, in the difference between infractions and felonies--malum prohibitum vs. malum in se--or those things made crimes by statute versus acts which are crimes by nature of the act.

 

In any case, I just wanted to point out that a lot of dead white/brown/yellow guys have put a lot of thought into these questions, and their answers are no less interesting because they're dead.

[KoorahUK]

Oh dear...

Look, without getting too far into a discussion on metaphysics, there's about 2,500 years of philosophy you're going to have to catch up on, since you're just recapitulating Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. But that view having regained currency is probably a result of William of Ockham in the 14th century, though a good chunk of the blame also goes to Descartes, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and others, filtered more recently through Derrida, Foucault, and the like. The sum of it is that most people don't have an understanding of what someone like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides meant by "nature," which was a metaphysical term inextricably linked with teleology, and not referring to physics and chemistry, or trees and fuzzy animals. In that respect, Daoist, Confucian, Hindu, and Buddhist philosophers had/have similar concepts.

As for Jefferson, I find it an open question as to whether he was following the Lockean notion of "natural rights" as self-ownership, which is the line that Rothbard, Rawls, and Nozick follow, or whether he was using the older Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of natural rights, by way of Richard Hooker, by way of Locke (who was strongly influenced). In either case, natural rights mean those rights possessed by a human being by virtue of being human, while civil or legal rights are those rights granted by law. English Common Law jurisdictions still make this distinction, in the difference between infractions and felonies--malum prohibitum vs. malum in se--or those things made crimes by statute versus acts which are crimes by nature of the act.

In any case, I just wanted to point out that a lot of dead white/brown/yellow guys have put a lot of thought into these questions, and their answers are no less interesting because they're dead.

I have no idea what you just said, but I'm aroused none the less.

I just wanted you to know that.

[dm3565]

Demonology and Anti-Demon research does exist.  In Lore, in Game.  

 

It's what Avernus was doing in Soldier's Peak, before and after the rebellion (respectively) and nothing untoward happened....wait...

 

never mind...

 

and @dm3565, thanks for putting much better into words my concerns about nobles controlling mages.  I could see them even returning to such a position as Vivienne was fulfilling--a glorified court jester/court pet--before she rose to be something more.

 

Frankly, I admire the woman's grit and determination.  In her position, I'd have been pissed too.  I think most anyone else on the board would have been too, if they were being honest with themselves.  While I suspect my Dalish and her won't get along, she will probably be a staple in my human groups.

 

Thank you for the compliment.

[Ryriena]

Thank you for the compliment.

Oh dear...

Look, without getting too far into a discussion on metaphysics, there's about 2,500 years of philosophy you're going to have to catch up on, since you're just recapitulating Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. But that view having regained currency is probably a result of William of Ockham in the 14th century, though a good chunk of the blame also goes to Descartes, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and others, filtered more recently through Derrida, Foucault, and the like. The sum of it is that most people don't have an understanding of what someone like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides meant by "nature," which was a metaphysical term inextricably linked with teleology, and not referring to physics and chemistry, or trees and fuzzy animals. In that respect, Daoist, Confucian, Hindu, and Buddhist philosophers had/have similar concepts.

As for Jefferson, I find it an open question as to whether he was following the Lockean notion of "natural rights" as self-ownership, which is the line that Rothbard, Rawls, and Nozick follow, or whether he was using the older Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of natural rights, by way of Richard Hooker, by way of Locke (who was strongly influenced by Hooker). In either case, natural rights mean those rights possessed by a human being by virtue of being human, while civil or legal rights are those rights granted by law. English Common Law jurisdictions still make this distinction, in the difference between infractions and felonies--malum prohibitum vs. malum in se--or those things made crimes by statute versus acts which are crimes by nature of the act.

In any case, I just wanted to point out that a lot of dead white/brown/yellow guys have put a lot of thought into these questions, and their answers are no less interesting because they're dead.

And, I beleive you beat me too the punch with a much better arrugment for the natual rights of humans beings in both a philosophical sense and the Metaphysical sense, as well.

[Medhia_Nox]

@dm3565:  Their arguments however cannot be transposed to Thedas on the grounds that the entire cosmology is genuinely different. 

 

Even if you believe that Buddha, for example, experienced what is said of him beneath the Bodhi tree... his Middle Path would likely not advocate the chaos which has ensued from the rebellion.  In fact - I'd say that the very nature of his experiences beneath the tree would be very akin to the concept of a Harrowing.  Which - of course - it would be said he passed nearly effortlessly and then achieved Enlightenment. 

 

In truth - I think people like Aristotle and Confucius would be quite against the concept that drives apostates - the nebulous term "freedom" - because, like pleasure for Epicurus - happiness (which is ultimately what apostates believe they would achieve by freedom) was taken to be understood on a metaphysical level as well and not on any sense of immediate gratification. 

 

Of note - they also would not have supported the current status of the Circles as places where the abuses of the Templars can often go unnoticed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

-snip-

*applause*

[Shadow Fox]

 

Oh dear...

 

Look, without getting too far into a discussion on metaphysics, there's about 2,500 years of philosophy you're going to have to catch up on, since you're just recapitulating Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. But that view having regained currency is probably a result of William of Ockham in the 14th century, though a good chunk of the blame also goes to Descartes, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and others, filtered more recently through Derrida, Foucault, and the like. The sum of it is that most people don't have an understanding of what someone like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides meant by "nature," which was a metaphysical term inextricably linked with teleology, and not referring to physics and chemistry, or trees and fuzzy animals.  In that respect, Daoist, Confucian, Hindu, and Buddhist philosophers had/have similar concepts.

 

As for Jefferson, I find it an open question as to whether he was following the Lockean notion of "natural rights" as self-ownership, which is the line that Rothbard, Rawls, and Nozick follow, or whether he was using the older Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of natural rights, by way of Richard Hooker, by way of Locke (who was strongly influenced by Hooker). In either case, natural rights mean those rights possessed by a human being by virtue of being human, while civil or legal rights are those rights granted by law. English Common Law jurisdictions still make this distinction, in the difference between infractions and felonies--malum prohibitum vs. malum in se--or those things made crimes by statute versus acts which are crimes by nature of the act.

 

In any case, I just wanted to point out that a lot of dead white/brown/yellow guys have put a lot of thought into these questions, and their answers are no less interesting because they're dead.

 

in nature humans possess no more rights then a bear because nature doesn't care if you are man or beast it is literally kill or be killed and survival of the fittest.

 

The very idea of rights is a human convention in the first place one that has constantly changed as well.

 

So either we're talking about 2 different things or I don't see how this disproves or even disputes what I said.

[Mr.House]

Templars who did disgusting things where not punished, mage who did where, this tells you all you need to know really.

That's false and you know it.

[Hellion Rex]

Templars who did disgusting things where not punished, mage who did where, this tells you all you need to know really.

Ummm, those Templars are either dead at the player's hands at this point or have the capacity to be killed at your hands.

[Hellion Rex]

That's false and you know it.

Well, I disagree about it being false, but it is within the player's capabilties to kill some of the worst offenders - Alrik, Karras, etc.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Shadow Fox:  We do not operate in the same paradigm as a bear.

[Mr.House]

Well, I disagree about it being false, but it is within the player's capabilties to kill some of the worst offenders - Alrik, Karras, etc.

The fact that the four worst templars in DA2 can all die speaks volume.

 

Lets also not forget that Anders almost killed an innocent mage(and can if you make the wrong choice)

[Hellion Rex]

The fact that the four worst templars in DA2 can all die speaks volume.

 

Lets also not forget that Anders almost killed an innocent mage(and can if you make the wrong choice)

I wasn't disputing any of the mage related deaths, but was simply clarifying about the Templar end of the situation, saying that you can kill the worst offenders in the Gallows.

[Mornmagor]

 

In either case, natural rights mean those rights possessed by a human being by virtue of being human, while civil or legal rights are those rights granted by law.

 

 

There is no such thing as natural rights. It's make-believe, just as civil rights. You know that already.

 

Natural rights will never help you, if you can't find shelter in them, like you can with civil rights. And even the latter, fall apart when there is no society to support and sometimes even enforce their existence and meaning.

 

The whole definition of "Right", from the ancient Greek etymology means something that will bring vindication to the one that uses it. This needs to be something that can be used.

 

That is why when eveything else falls apart, it comes down to might, as the last thing you will use.

 

If we want humans to be treated with some standards, it will need to be as such, because societies function better with said standards, and that's why your "rights" always evolve, as societies evolve.

 

But it won't be because they are "entitled" to said rights, just because they are born human.

 

Rights, in general, are not tangible.

 

It's a practical need of society, and that is why we invented them, as something that can be used.

[Shadow Fox]

@Shadow Fox:  We do not operate in the same paradigm as a bear.

Yeah I think we're talking about different things now...

 

I'm saying naturally humans have no more right to live than a bear if a bear tries to eat us we have to either outsmart or kill it to survive same as any other animal in the wild we don't get preferential treatment because of our humanity.

 

I think you're all talking about the rights of individuals in human society.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Mormagor:  I would argue that you have:

- The Right to Exist (time frame not fixed)

- The Right to Struggle (with the goal being what dm3565 was hinting at with his philosophers)

- The Right to Die (see: The Right to Exist)

 

Human nature IS make-believe - that some humans are incapable of comprehending the value of human nature - is not the fault of that value. 

[Mornmagor]

If i replace the word Right, with the word Power, does it make a difference?

 

Existing doesn't involve a right.

 

Struggling needs force, life is always exerting some kind of force for a certain evolutionary direction, you don't have a choice if you want to live.

 

It involves power. And always, our definitions.

 

The rights we talk about, that could be used in favor of Mages for example, are rights they need to be able to use. And these rights need to be given by law, or else we'll head to "might makes right" again.

 

Basically, in conjuction with the topic, even with naming the three you mention as "de facto rights", Mages would still have a problem.

 

P.S. Oh darn, it's 6:00 am here >.>

[sylvanaerie]

The fact that the four worst templars in DA2 can all die speaks volume.

 

Lets also not forget that Anders almost killed an innocent mage(and can if you make the wrong choice)

 

 

Been a while since I played. Alrik, Karras and Meredith are all I remember.  Who was the 4th?  I don't really count the recruit who tries to kill Cullen...he was possessed.

 

NM strike that, Petrice's dog I don't remember his name...but I remember him now.

[Hellion Rex]

Been a while since I played. Alrik, Karras and Meredith are all I remember.  Who was the 4th?  I don't really count the recruit who tries to kill Cullen...he was possessed.

 

NM strike that, Petrice's dog I don't remember his name...but I remember him now.

Ser Varnell! Thank you for reminding me of him!

[Mornmagor]

I wonder if i can have a large Anders portrait in Vivienne's room. I'm sure she'll like it!

 

But, i'm joking.

 

Somewhat.

[sylvanaerie]

Ser Varnell! Thank you for reminding me of him!

 

I almost didn't count Karras.  For the longest time I didn't realize you actually didn't have to kill him.  He died in a lot of my games.

[AshenEndymion]

What exactly does Ser Karras do to warrant being considered "one of the worst four templars"?  He does his job, as far as I'm concerned... And he's rather lenient at that, what with bringing the Starkhaven bloodmages to Kirkwall alive...

[sylvanaerie]

What exactly does Ser Karras do to warrant being considered "one of the worst four templars"?  He does his job, as far as I'm concerned... And he's rather lenient at that, what with bringing the Starkhaven bloodmages to Kirkwall alive...

 

If playing the game didn't convince you why he's such a douchenozzle, nothing I say possibly could.

[dm3565]

in nature humans possess no more rights then a bear because nature doesn't care if you are man or beast it is literally kill or be killed and survival of the fittest.

 

The very idea of rights is a human convention in the first place one that has constantly changed as well.

 

So either we're talking about 2 different things or I don't see how this disproves or even disputes what I said.

 

 

There is no such thing as natural rights. It's make-believe, just as civil rights. You know that already.

 

Natural rights will never help you, if you can't find shelter in them, like you can with civil rights. And even the latter, fall apart when there is no society to support and sometimes even enforce their existence and meaning.

 

But it won't be because they are "entitled" to said rights, just because they are born human.

 

Rights, in general, are not tangible.

 

It's a practical need of society, and that is why we invented them, as something that can be used.

 

 

Yeah I think we're talking about different things now...

 

I'm saying naturally humans have no more right to live than a bear if a bear tries to eat us we have to either outsmart or kill it to survive same as any other animal in the wild we don't get preferential treatment because of our humanity.

 

I think you're all talking about the rights of individuals in human society.

 

 

If i replace the word Right, with the word Power, does it make a difference?

 

Existing doesn't involve a right.

 

Struggling needs force, life is always exerting some kind of force for a certain evolutionary direction, you don't have a choice if you want to live.

 

It involves power. And always, our definitions.

 

The rights we talk about, that could be used in favor of Mages for example, are rights they need to be able to use. And these rights need to be given by law, or else we'll head to "might makes right" again.

 

Basically, in conjuction with the topic, even with naming the three you mention as "de facto rights", Mages would still have a problem.

 

P.S. Oh darn, it's 6:00 am here >.>

 

To those that replied.

 

I was not attempting to argue about natural rights, so much as giving a very very brief thumbnail sketch of the intellectual tradition of the concept, as well as pointing out that the historical use of terminology and concepts in the discussion of "natural rights" is radically different than what most people today understand by either of those words. If I might be frank, your replies only illustrate my point. The idea of nature as held by, say, Aristotle, is a metaphysical concept embedded in a metaphysical system, and the arguments that you give have nothing to do with the arguments that were made historically. And the reason that I'm not making counter-arguments is (1) this thread isn't about that and (2) I would have to spend couple dozen pages laying down just the metaphysical idea of "nature" before we even approached ethics, and then political philosophy, and then the notion of rights. We would have to go way up the chain of analysis and explore the positions of at least half a dozen major philosophers before we would be on the same page and able to argue the point.

 

If you want to gain an introduction to a traditional formulation of natural law, I would suggest this essay/article (PDF, not mine) published in "Social Philosophy and Policy," as a starting point.

[Ryzaki]

What exactly does Ser Karras do to warrant being considered "one of the worst four templars"?  He does his job, as far as I'm concerned... And he's rather lenient at that, what with bringing the Starkhaven bloodmages to Kirkwall alive...

 

He rapes Alain

 

Edit: Thanks Elu