I was listening to a podcast where Stitch from Lilo and Stitch came up in a news story, and one of the hosts kept calling him "Sitch." Just goes to show that it goes both ways. Neither Sitch nor Stitch has the natural right to have the correct name used by others.
"Might makes right" isn't a prescription for how things should be. It's a recognition of how things ARE, objectively. The word "might" in that phrase is just a stand-in for some mixture of power and competence.
No, this is confusion of justification and consequence. "Might makes right" implies that the act done by the mighty is correct and justified. It asserts that the truth value of an act or position or concept is dependent on the capacity of another to enforce his own. As a description of how things are, then at most "mights makes right" is an utilitarian description that would be better described as "might makes things happen, which is obviously a different statement and a correct description of reality. TL;DR: "Might makes right" is prescriptive." Many people incorrectly use it to mean "Might makes things happen" which is objective description.
@nicolopez2181 It's a figure of speech. Only an oxymoron would suggest that "might makes right" is a prescription because the entire purpose behind the saying is to call attention to the inherently subjective nature of morality, and the fact that no matter what your morals are, morals don't enforce themselves. At the end of the day, it's the "mighty" who ultimately takes the cake. "Might is right" could only be considered a "prescription" if it weren't already the way things are. Fact is, we can't escape it. Therefore, it can not be a prescription, by definition. In our modern civilized society, we are currently role-playing and pretending as if might DOESN'T make right.
@@devinmillican2873 thanks you for describing the concept of "might makes things happen", like I did previously. Point being, you have abandoned the usage of "right" and use it as a metaphor because it is on its face untrue. "Might makes right" is a prescriptive statement on morality. "Might makes things happen" is the objective cause-and-effect observation.
Oh fuck no, that debate was barely listenable as it was because I like both of those characters, The added level of stitch's banal takes and observations? No fucking way, no thank you
@@NicofTime...Lol that's never happened. And I'd love to see Andrew get "destroyed" by Sitch and Adam. It would honestly be a great debate. Andrew has already challenged them on it. They just need to accept.
@@NicofTime...dude are you genuinely mentally disabled? In what fucking world do those only fan whores ever look good or clown on anyone? They are like some sort of listen to the rest of us of how not to be in life. Those are the only fangirls are depressing, you really don't see them on the whatever podcast and take their side do you use sad little twat
And compulsively shoots the gun at anything that moves and won't stand down even in the face of friendly libertarians practically begging for a cease fire. (If you haven't seen his "debate" with Dave Smith, and you value your sanity, stay away. And I say all of this as someone who mostly AGREES with Andrew...)
@@sterlingveilyeah but you know what it's sort of like having the Hulk on your team, he's a big pain in the ass but when you need that it's good to have him around
Multiple thoughts 1)"Rights" are a derivation of objective morality. Objective morality is about what ought to be the case not what just so happens to be the case. When you say you have a right to something you're saying it is morally acceptable for you to use coercion to obtain that thing. So for example, the right to not be murdered means it is morally acceptable for you to use coercion to prevent the act of murder. The right to eat as a negative right means it is morally acceptable for you to use coercion to stop people stealing food that you own. Rights are not mere legal privileges. 2) Morality is objective in the sense that we can determine a priori what is a logically consistent and universalize-able rule for 2 or more people to follow. For example, you can have two guys in a room adhere to the moral principle "thou shall not murder". That rule is logically consistent and can be universally preferable to all people in the room. The opposite of that rule: "You have to right to murder other people" cannot be a universal value for two people in a room because murder by definition is an act that is undesired. Since it has to be an undesired act for it to be murder it cannot be universally preferable. Therefore, there is no psychologically compelling reason for people to adhere to it. 3)Morality cannot have exceptions. It makes no sense to have a moral rule that has the exception "until someone punches you in the face". That is self-defeating and anti-moral. By Andrew's logic, the act of grape isn't even wrong because the female victim is less mighty than the tyrant victimizing her. 4)God does not actually solve the problem of morality. Does God love what is good because it is good or is the good only good because God loves it? If you believe the former is the case then you have to admit that God is an unnecessary middle man for objective morality. If you believe the latter is the case then you're just a moral subjectivist that is afraid of God. Under moral subjectivism, all epistemic duties are arbitrary. If all epistemic duties are arbitrary than you have no rational basis for determining whether one source of divine revelation is better than another one. So you just have to surrender to the cultural relativism of different geographic locations having different religions and different standards of right and wrong.
Outside of definitions and semantics, rights are the glue that hold our society together. We have a set of values that we (used to) agree on and our rights were the method with which we enforce those values. Natural rights are just the rules a society agrees to to keep us from acting on our base natures
There's that, but then also besides sitchs law there is this ontological debate. Where do rights even come from? How do we justify them? Sitch and Adam think they're not real but their value is and so should be enforced onto people. Issue. If their meaning comes from enforcement then there is no philosophical reason to disagree with a populous who simply enforces other rights or seeks to not enforce them. The idea being here that the rights simply come from what government has control but we must trust that government to agree with us on rights. It's actually a common left vs right argument. I think the right has a good idea with trying to abstract it past the government making it a good beyond control but I think their aim it too narrow. It doesnt have to be this divinity in humans (arbitration being humans are animals and animal havent much right why? Consciousness? OK that's even more arbitration) and probably just do something akin to propertarianism: Rights and cultural values have some utility to the populous and therefore can be treated like a property. We have rights to our property, we have rights to those ideas as a cultural and human good. Something like that.
Social construct to me is just a mutual agreement with society, hence "anti social behaviour" is being a dick and human rights is not "forced" but protected. You have the natural right to protect yourself and if you can't you have a group, family or government. Hence you can't "attack or steal from others as there is the infringement of the other persons right and opens you up to get shot in response
A social construct is implicit, there is no mutual agreement. Essentially you follow rules but can’t rationalise why you follow them, and hence can’t make them explicit and can’t describe to others what the rule is.
Organizing into a group and codifying laws creates (edit: added 'the protection of') rights via social contract, they're based on protecting everyone from the restrictions of individual freedoms by others. Freedoms reasonably and intuitively expected by humans to be optimal for autonomy.
No this is wrong, you don’t justify a right, it is not created by the law hence untouchable by the law. A civil right is but that’s because it’s an extension on a natural right. A social contract does not exist, it was a post hoc justification because of the problem of duties in law. Duties create positive right, which is not an actual thing, in reality it’s a result of getting something after the fact of justice. The social contract is the contradiction of liberalism. On which the libertarians try to correct, although granted dogmatically so with the ancaps. Rights aren’t created to restrict they are created to tell us what is untouchable by law. Laws are only there to tell us what not to do. If someone think a law is telling them what to do, they are probably an authoritarian.
@@EconNerd1199-u6i I see the confusion. I added the phrase just now to clarify. Ideally, laws are made to protect individual rights, not create them. I should have said articulate and protect rights, not create. laws are the effort to protect individual rights from limitation by other individuals or institutions. Laws don't create rights. They should prohibit people from infringement of the rights of others. We all do happen to agree on fundamental rights because every human shares the same basic intuition about autonomy and the inappropriate limitations thereof by others. Social contract is a descriptive term of the balance between individual freedoms and acknowledgement of the same rights of others that limit your freedom to encroach on theirs. It's the agreement to follow the golden rule. The social contract is a metaphor, or we'd all have a copy of the contract we signed. It's a way to describe the concessions we make to live in society. Your reference to authoritarianism suggests that any protection of rights by the elected government against those who would infringe upon individual rights is overstepping. But I'm not giving my money to big Ed because he'll beat me up otherwise. And I want the law enforcement people to intervene when he tries to coerce me. Anything you disagree with?
@@drdaverob if it’s a metaphor how is it a legitimisation of a government? The whole basis is that if people agree to the contract then that gives it a legitimisation of government, but if it now doesn’t exist because it’s a metaphor then it must not now be legitimate. You were correct in your first interpretation the state does tell you what to do via the “social contract” eg. You must pay taxes etc. The problem of the whole narrative is its contradictory with liberalism tenants because the point is to create circumstances where natural rights come first and then by the agreement of the social contract that leads to duties in order to protect people’s rights but not absolute freedom or actions. In reality the law should use the silver rule over the golden rule. It should first do no harm. But people don’t like this as they always want other to act in way which will benefit them. They will always invoke a natural duty prior to the law or outside of the law. This is why we have the insanity of the people rejecting natural rights. You have the woke and the Christian theocrats telling you what you ought do and using the law to justify it in the name of security.
To Sitch, I think you just look on objectivism from wrond side. For me essence would be that people aren't good or bad from the start, just selfish. Being selfish is most neutral thing. And need in evolution. Maybe english world from dictionary isn't fully showing importance of that. It's always base on which you build, like for example if you want to help someone, first you need to be in good situation, otherwise help won't be long and can be insuficent. Even in society you need some selfishness to care first for your family (evolution). All interaction the best mode is free maket, where selfish people get what they want. People just don't understand that money isn't only currency for example people do something for money, power, fame but also for love, recognition, self-fulfillment. In this case you can donate money for poor people generally for self-fulfillment, to feeling better, to make world better for your friends and family. It's selfish. But help others. We doing everything for selfish reasons, but outcome usually helps someone (ofc. can be also opposite). It;s basic for human reaction and free trade. Problem is that all of this is in case of rational human, but humans can be very irrational
Sitch talking about hating horses and seeing a guys face after it got kicked by one reveals the origin of the fear of the Horse Sized Duck. Core memory has unlocked.
Seems like Andrew's debate brain was getting too thirsty for too long, and suddenly concocted a conflict to conquer. Had to bare his teeth for some reason.
Meh, it was a friendly debate that needed to be had. And it seems like Andrew did good on planting the seed as Tim is leaning more towards his view on rights as of late.
I think its transparent how much he cares about winning arguments and doesn't care about finding truth and it makes everything he says lack credibility making Andrew not worth listening to.
Marcuse was Repressive Tolerance which inverted Popper's Paradox of Tolerance in an attempt to solve it. Popper's formulating = based Marcuse's distortion = unbased Not that it matters but Tim has said for a few years that he does believe in a god
It's one of my biggest problems with Wilson. At first I thought it was funny to watch him argue leftists using their own logic, then I realized he actually just thinks like them. He will strip your beliefs down to nothing but when you press him, he just defers his opinions to God and calls it "objective".
Buddy he’s describing what is true not what we ought to do when he talks about rights not existing. Atheists cannot ground their beliefs because it boils down to preferences while God give us duties through his revelations
@@franciscobenitez70 I hear ya, but wouldn't the natural rights, should they exist, cover both the atheist and religious person? If you group all the world's atheists on one side and all the religious folks on the other, the religious revelatory duties will certainly differ, but natural rights would apply to the whole bunch, no?
@@O0kalā what do you mean by natural rights like right to property, right to life stuff like that? As Christians we have a duty to reproduce a duty to treat one another with respect because God made us in his image. That’s all Andrew Wilson tries to say when he points out rights don’t exist.
I'm not familar with Andrew Wilson, so this will be the first time I'll hear him. As an athiest, then unlike Tim Pool..... I already have reality on my side. I'm not saying this to belittle Christians, Buddists, Muslims, or anyone else who believe in the existance of a god or other supernatural invisible beings. You can believe what you want to, as long as it doesn't involve me and you don't force your beliefs on other people.
@franciscobenitez70 Right to life, property, sure...I'm not staking a claim, just enjoying the topic. Outside looking in, it seems like the concept of religious duties in the mind of the religious is the same phenomenon in the secular mind regarding natural rights. They're both inert convictions, both playing the role of the foundation from which to justifiably stand and live. That said, tho, it'll be a never-ending debate about which one is more authentic and therefore real.
It's a useful illustration even more useful for the religious to follow. It brings both the altheist and theists together. The problem tends to be that at some point the theist becomes authoritarian and the atheist responds in kind. But all in all it's pretty dumb, you could easily sum it up by saying we need to enforce some kind of rights if we want a society
I think Andrew wasn’t great here, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity by framing its ability to change as a strength, because it doesn’t REALLY change much at all. All doctrine within Catholicism for example needs to be grounded in scripture.
Sacred tradition in Catholicism doesn't have to be grounded in Scripture. They don't believe in Sola Scriptura. They have two sources of divine revelation: Scripture and the Magisterium. These two can never contradict one another, but neither is grounded in the other. They are separate, equally divine, sources of truth according to Catholicism.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 that’s correct mostly, yes. Sacred tradition comes from the magisterium and it cannot contradict scripture. Point being, the strengths of Catholicism are the strong foundations of sacred scripture and the teachings of the magisterium.
@@devinmillican2873 the scripture hasn’t changed. And that’s not how translations work. If anything, the translation has gotten better over time. You’re repeating a myth.
oh yeah something that clinged on my mind jelesy is when one hates on someone who just has it better envey is when both have the same but one just dose it better
If we are to start at an axiom, the principle of reciprocity is a great place to start. I would like to voice my own opinions, and I should not impede others from doing so lest they in turn censor me. I would like to continue living and would protect myself if attacked, and would not wish others to attack me or be impeded from defending themselves should they be attacked. Critically, I would not like to be compelled to absent compensation, and would not ask another to do so. From this last point comes my definition of rights: An intrinsic behavior of humans which is performed independent of society or material. Some of the points from the conversation : You have the right to eat (verb), but food is not guaranteed. You have the right to bodily autonomy, but a medical professional cannot be compelled (except by their consent/oaths) by force to treat you. Provided you are properly removed from society, you should have the right to secure/fabricate shelter, but quality/materials are not guaranteed, or so i contend
What does intrinsic mean though? Don't mean sitch over you, but intrinsic human behavior and history shows reciprocity was only liked within groups and even then limited in scope. Men and women raped each other killee robbed and even cheated all the time. It seems intrinsic to human nature that we do what is best for ourselves (survival) and little thought comes after to its long term effects. Not going into r/k theory or even civilizations based on nurturing/fertilization what all that means etc. But is it enough to say that independent of society we have no actual claim to anything? We are not in competition to anyone as we would be in the real world, thus society. It only follows that removing society like putting man on a shit island by himself he is simply doing stuff to survive and cannot impact anyone else even unintentionally by being there. It is to say a good concept for how man might act to survive or what we are capable of, but I find it too limited to answer social questions let alone ideas about governance.
@@kingofthegutter8259 I mean, sure humans have never existed in the Locke/Rousseau "state of nature" and have always come from something like a society even if just a tribe. I also agree that for most humans, life was brutal enough that first order thinking and zero-sum "games" were predominant in society. I posited that definition of a "right" because we have to have some definition to work with (we are beyond abolishment of rights as a concept). I should amend that this is probably best suited as a definition of "Natural" or "Human" rights. I prefer this definition because I am repulsed by assertions that health care and abortion fall in the same category as self defense and ownership of property. From the original outline of a right as a "man in the state of nature," I use "intrinsic" to differentiate behaviors that a man on a shit island might exhibit from those preferable to a civilized existence, like voting, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or equality under the law. Not to say that the latter should not also be rights, but rather they should be categorized as civil rights or similar. I think the cat of "rights" is out of the bag, and it cannot be put back in without civilization imperiling catastrophe. Now we believe we have rights (in much the same way as free will, not to tangent) and have/must structure society to defend them. We have become obsessed with liberty, and forgotten freedom, or at the very least conflated them. Freedom is a synthesis of liberty and duty. You are at liberty to own fire arms but have a duty to both defend that liberty and exercise prudence in its use. Apologies if i have neglected to respond to any of your points (i would appreciate clarification where you can). I hope to continue this thread when i am no longer on mobile
Natural rights is the moral justification for the maximum range of actions available to an individual not in a social setting, social setting being defined as any interaction between two or more individuals that possess sentience. Natural rights exist as long as human beings exist; we are their material form, as our bodies unconsciously act in order to sustain us, such as in the form of our hearts beating and our brains sending signals to our bodies to act. To deny natural rights exist is both to deny the sentience of human beings, while also arguing that they have no inherent moral value. Whether these statements are true or not is not really the point. The question is of the intent of those who deny the existence of natural rights. Those who do deny the existence of natural rights are inherently a threat based on the internal logic of what natural rights are and how they manifest. The word "privilege" is used to describe any sort of material guarantee of any sort of social condition by any person or persons or entities made up of persons. Civilization-building is about shifting from focus on natural rights to privileges, as a negotiation to live together in a coherent and rules-based way. The contention by libertarians is that immoral, impractical, excessively violative, or otherwise unjustifiably exclusionary privileges should not supercede these natural rights. Privileges, however, that are moral, practical, exist in equilibrium, or universal, without possessing any of the other aforementioned negative qualities, are perfectly fine, even if libertarians may disagree about what constitutes each of these qualities, negative or otherwise. The argument isn't that force is unjustifiable and we should all abide by a social contract instead, the argument is that there's a proper place for force and we shouldn't be applying force except in a narrow window where it's justifiable to do so, so as to not create an unjust society.
Andrew is not making an ought claim. We dont have natural rights to anything, only abilities. If a wild mountain decides you should be eaten and exerts the FORCE to do so, then where is your “natural rights” to life and existence? Rights are made up social constructs that dont exist in material reality. Force is the only thing that matters. Without force, “rights” cannot be enforced
@@casket8530 Natural rights exist intrinsic to the person. I am free to try to defend myself, and it is not immoral to be the aggressor against a lion in the first place. That's the point. Everything is ultimately a made-up construct that doesn't exist in reality by your reasoning (read: intentional blindness). "Ability" is a concept, not an action, and actions themselves are not material objects, so the argument that "things that are not material are not real" is only true in that you've defined it as such. In reality however, morality exists as a pattern in the brain, ethics exist as a pattern in the brain that's repeated from person to person. These things are built into our very genes, and rhetoric allows us to express them to help repeat a specific rhetorical manifestation of them from person to person. Then they become real as sound waves in the air, which can then influence higher-intellect beings to change their actions. These things are material on several levels, and people who disagree with that are basically just unga-bunga barbarians who want power without restraint, who should be shunned and destroyed with the power they so desperately crave.
@@ApplesGhost Nonsensical rambling. Again, no one is making ought claims. You only have the ability to defend yourself, but if the lion has greater force, my question to you is where are your rights to live, breathe, eat, exist in this scenario? Ability is not defined as a concept. This is just fact of reality, without FORCE, your “natural rights” do not exist and will constantly be impeded on in material reality. Would like a direct response to my hypothetical.
It's important to do your doody everyday, or it is bad for you. Also, rights are the opposite of wrongs, and they're self evident unless you're [redacted].
"Mathematical principles exist in nature and are rules that reality confirms to math, and the numbers that we create are just symbols to represent these set of rules, that explain how reality works " Tell that to The Dictator with everything called "Aladeen" lol
You can't make God rational rights he/she is necessarily SUPERNATURAL (see how that works) Can you say what you mean? Can you mean what you say? Look up
There are no natural rights. fact is you are a small villager and part of a tribe. you have as much rights as the rest of the people allow you to have because order has to exist for your little village ruled by your chief to not be completely donezo. So your little rules have to align with your neighbours or if they dont you have to be stronger then them. And that goes up the chain and if it breaks civil wars happen
Tim pool lost this dispute. The things he calls rights aren’t rights. They’re biological functions. Words have semi-ridged meanings. Right fundamentally requires force. They aren’t synonymous. But to have rights, you need force to enforce rights throughout a society He definitely did get better overtime.
Rights have to be enforced? So they're not natural? Then rights derive from their enforcement? So they are only meaningful depending on how they're enforced or who enforced them? Interesting. I don't mean to sound as snobby and fuck-boyish like vaush I apologize for the tone.
@@kingofthegutter8259I’ll give you credit for your very self aware statement of disagreement Nicely done. Also, you have a very valid point and you’ve persuaded me to think of rights from a different angle.
@@kingofthegutter8259/shorts Some rights are "naturally" easier (physically or psychologically) to enforce than others. The "natural" rights, are, therefore, those rights which men are, by their "nature" able and willing to enforce. But, yes, rights cannot be divorced from enforcement. Fundamentally, rights are a linguistic tool used by a group (usually a NATION) to negotiate the parameters for engaging the militia--i.e., a collective statement and agreement about what we, the armed citizenry, are willing to fight and die for. The erosion of our rights is really an atrophy of our willingness to fight and die for "transcendent" (i.e., non-material) values like "liberty, equality and brotherhood". And the atrophy has been accelerated by the destruction of religion, which provides a shared frame under which transcendent sacrifice "makes sense". In the absence of that shared frame, such sacrifice is openly mocked and described either as oppressive (if the sacrifice is seen as pernicious, e.g., when traditionalists defend strict gender roles at great cost to their social reputation) or as foolish (if the sacrifice is simply seen as unfair or illogical, e.g., when a religious man lays down his life for his country).
27:47 yes Adam now you are the liberal and the libertarian, it’s almost like what separates them is a principle of justice. And liberals contradict that by the social contract argument which allows some religious zealots and social justice activist and communist to impose their rules on society via a natural duty. Which is a complete contradiction because a duty must have a negative right in the first place, if I’m wrong someone can prove me wrong by stating how we have a positive right which does not pre-exist society. That it, that all the libertarian position is, and then 5 different people tried to create legal principles which fixed that issue and you all like to take the strawman because you don’t have the capability to create a duty with out the same magical reasoning you mock everyone for. 28:22 the duty only exist in society not outside it. 29:34 yes, and Andrew is dumb because he is creating a duty to god before any right has even been formed, because god exist prior to law, or prior to the abstract moral rules of society. You literally have to create an entire mythical construct in order to justify them.
14:15 So the thing that Sitch and Rand detractors forget about Objectivism is the name of the philosophy. When you set yourself upon your objective, and look for the best way objectively to achieve it, the average antisocial actions is rarely the correct/moral way to go. In objectivism could you theoretically allow killing your way to the objective, sure. But in most cases that strategy would have you living like Stalin, looking over your shoulder and peeing yourself alone when you just need a doctor to give rudimentary aid. And since that is not a selfishly successful success way to live, it would be immoral.
You don’t need god for natural rights, the argument was they can come from either of the three basis. God, Nature or Reason. These all pre existing man and hence pre exist law created by man. This is the basis of Liberalism. What you are invoking is called a natural duty(“positive rights”which is dumb), which can lead to authoritarianism because you are obligating people to act in certain ways. But a duty cannot pre exist a right, hence the term natural duty is false because there is no duty in reason or nature of man pre society. It’s only in society that a duty can be invoked, and they can only be invoked in the protection of a right. Marx believed in a natural duty ie the labour theory of value. Rawls believed in social justice, however it was debunked because if people are not intentionally producing outcomes consciously and this does not violate an individual natural right then the action cannot be constituted as just or unjust, hence a “social” justice can mean what ever they want it to mean. It allows them to create legal duties based on whatever inequality they find. Natural rights are not a fiction, empirically you have the capability to think, you evolved in nature to think, therefore you have the right to belief. You evolved the capability to speak, therefore you have the right to free speech. If a society takes these rights away they decline in an empirical way. They exist as an empirical property of good and just societies, if you ignore them society goes to hell. Even an empiricist must agree as a general rule these abstractions produce a good society, they aren’t just a concept because they correlate with good societies. Might makes right is not apart of natural rights, rather they give the basis for what is just or unjust. If someone uses might in an unjust way then it is simply that. Might doesn’t pre exist society. So this argument doesn’t hold. If people are constraining freedom then it’s an unjust action. Again just because some can do an action does not mean that action does not mean that natural rights don’t exist. 7:21 Adam’s argument makes no sense??? He is just describing a people acting unjustly, and then saying that is natural when in reality he is describing a general rule of action, the question is about justice and law. Is that action just or unjust and clear he thinks it’s unjust, but where did his theory of justice come from? If you enact violence on the principle of saving someone’s rights, you’ve invoke a duty but that duty didn’t come before the rights, it was in the protection of those rights. That’s what Civil rights are meant to do. Keep in mind, a war definitionally, must involve a society.
1:11:46 While I find Andrew’s style of argument abrasive and his personality woefully unlikable I don’t think hypocrisy is what he’s doing here. He finally stated his axiomatic belief which comes from God after trying to get Tim to establish his. I’m a Christian. I think this dude stinks.
It is contradictory to state that you have values that cant be proven as a concept ontological and then throw away the is/ought gap by stating I guess it's good enough to die for huh? And might makes right as well your opinions about natural rights coincide because you acknowledge the anti-liberal presupposition that power is derived and not something that sprouts like emn do from blank slates but you are wrapped in the liberal idea of man comming from God you cannot justify it. Find another perspective that is liberal apologetic ok? That's what I did.
Y Ou continue to not understand how natural rights work. Natural rights does not mean "rights that do not need to be defended becuase they will magically be protected". Dev has an understnading of how Natural rights wor ks that he has articulated a clear understanding of natural rights so may be he can explain it to you. your position of what nat ural rights are is a strawman. We conend that the state doesn't need to be w hat defends these rights. Please cease this strawman.
This was Andrew bringing in his virtue signal of religion. Yes, he went in wanting this argument. Tim also gave him props for a decent disagreement after this little debate. Tim doesn't get to debate worldview as much as he would like. Edit: I do like Andrew Wilson and both Tim Pool. They both are on the same team and understand this. Echo chambers are not fun unless you are farther left.
Whenever people say that they have an innate right to something provided to them by some higher power they just immediately lose me, it's not really persuasive, and it just seems so stupid to me.
I cant agree with the idea that you have a 'duty' to preserve other peoples rights. I can understand where that idea comes from and why its theoretically good but I'm a cynic at heart. It reminds me of that Dune quote “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
@@Fabric_Hater if rights come from from self preservation how would you not say stealing is a right because I steal food from someone else so I can live lol
Might makes right. There is literally no other objective rule to our society if we do not believe in them being imposed by a god (i personally do not). Every other right comes from whatever the people who have the might have decided to enforce. "But this makes society thrive" ...and? If you are honest with yourself, most people do not believe that, they choose their tribe, be it a nation, a family, a circle of friends, or whatever else, and they labour to make that group thrive, at the expense of those they see outside their tribe.
I was listening to a podcast where Stitch from Lilo and Stitch came up in a news story, and one of the hosts kept calling him "Sitch."
Just goes to show that it goes both ways. Neither Sitch nor Stitch has the natural right to have the correct name used by others.
That's hilarious and I can imagine if I were a podcast host I'd be making the same mistake too lol
I use speech to text when I make these comments and Destiny Junior, isn't worth the effort of me correcting it
Jesus wasn't a hippy, Jesus wasn't a socialist. Simple as
Your Jesus isn't. The biblical one is.
@@drdaverob Biblical jesus wasnt a socialist.. Love you fools that love to lie that jesus was socialist lmao.
“Don’t bother giving to poor, let the government use your neighbor’s money for that shit.” - Jesus
"Might makes right" isn't a prescription for how things should be. It's a recognition of how things ARE, objectively. The word "might" in that phrase is just a stand-in for some mixture of power and competence.
The aphorism is ambiguous and I've seen it implied and interpreted both ways in different contexts, so I try to avoid using it.
No, this is confusion of justification and consequence.
"Might makes right" implies that the act done by the mighty is correct and justified. It asserts that the truth value of an act or position or concept is dependent on the capacity of another to enforce his own.
As a description of how things are, then at most "mights makes right" is an utilitarian description that would be better described as "might makes things happen, which is obviously a different statement and a correct description of reality.
TL;DR: "Might makes right" is prescriptive." Many people incorrectly use it to mean "Might makes things happen" which is objective description.
@nicolopez2181 It's a figure of speech. Only an oxymoron would suggest that "might makes right" is a prescription because the entire purpose behind the saying is to call attention to the inherently subjective nature of morality, and the fact that no matter what your morals are, morals don't enforce themselves. At the end of the day, it's the "mighty" who ultimately takes the cake. "Might is right" could only be considered a "prescription" if it weren't already the way things are. Fact is, we can't escape it. Therefore, it can not be a prescription, by definition.
In our modern civilized society, we are currently role-playing and pretending as if might DOESN'T make right.
@@devinmillican2873 thanks you for describing the concept of "might makes things happen", like I did previously.
Point being, you have abandoned the usage of "right" and use it as a metaphor because it is on its face untrue.
"Might makes right" is a prescriptive statement on morality.
"Might makes things happen" is the objective cause-and-effect observation.
In the video, he already states “Might makes.” There’s a reason he dropped the “right” so as to avoid any moral or ethical implications.
Oh fuck no, that debate was barely listenable as it was because I like both of those characters,
The added level of stitch's banal takes and observations?
No fucking way, no thank you
I wish you guys weren't a couple of scared Little girls and actually had this conversation with Andrew personally.
Have they denied him the opportunity to have a conversation?
Why Andrew gets clowned on by OF girls. These guys would destroy him.
@@NicofTime...Lol that's never happened. And I'd love to see Andrew get "destroyed" by Sitch and Adam. It would honestly be a great debate. Andrew has already challenged them on it. They just need to accept.
@@NicofTime...dude are you genuinely mentally disabled? In what fucking world do those only fan whores ever look good or clown on anyone? They are like some sort of listen to the rest of us of how not to be in life. Those are the only fangirls are depressing, you really don't see them on the whatever podcast and take their side do you use sad little twat
@@GruntBurgeryeah Adam called Andrew a racist and Andrew asked him to debate it. Adam declined
You should have Andrew on your show, he already made a video about Adam. Would be fun.
57:23
“Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli
Andrew is like a child who finds a gun and doesnt know what it is, but can use it. Except the gun is deconstructivism
And compulsively shoots the gun at anything that moves and won't stand down even in the face of friendly libertarians practically begging for a cease fire.
(If you haven't seen his "debate" with Dave Smith, and you value your sanity, stay away. And I say all of this as someone who mostly AGREES with Andrew...)
Ironic yall are too dumb to even understand his arguments
@@sterlingveilyeah but you know what it's sort of like having the Hulk on your team, he's a big pain in the ass but when you need that it's good to have him around
Multiple thoughts
1)"Rights" are a derivation of objective morality. Objective morality is about what ought to be the case not what just so happens to be the case. When you say you have a right to something you're saying it is morally acceptable for you to use coercion to obtain that thing. So for example, the right to not be murdered means it is morally acceptable for you to use coercion to prevent the act of murder. The right to eat as a negative right means it is morally acceptable for you to use coercion to stop people stealing food that you own. Rights are not mere legal privileges.
2) Morality is objective in the sense that we can determine a priori what is a logically consistent and universalize-able rule for 2 or more people to follow. For example, you can have two guys in a room adhere to the moral principle "thou shall not murder". That rule is logically consistent and can be universally preferable to all people in the room. The opposite of that rule: "You have to right to murder other people" cannot be a universal value for two people in a room because murder by definition is an act that is undesired. Since it has to be an undesired act for it to be murder it cannot be universally preferable. Therefore, there is no psychologically compelling reason for people to adhere to it.
3)Morality cannot have exceptions. It makes no sense to have a moral rule that has the exception "until someone punches you in the face". That is self-defeating and anti-moral. By Andrew's logic, the act of grape isn't even wrong because the female victim is less mighty than the tyrant victimizing her.
4)God does not actually solve the problem of morality. Does God love what is good because it is good or is the good only good because God loves it? If you believe the former is the case then you have to admit that God is an unnecessary middle man for objective morality. If you believe the latter is the case then you're just a moral subjectivist that is afraid of God. Under moral subjectivism, all epistemic duties are arbitrary. If all epistemic duties are arbitrary than you have no rational basis for determining whether one source of divine revelation is better than another one. So you just have to surrender to the cultural relativism of different geographic locations having different religions and different standards of right and wrong.
Outside of definitions and semantics, rights are the glue that hold our society together. We have a set of values that we (used to) agree on and our rights were the method with which we enforce those values. Natural rights are just the rules a society agrees to to keep us from acting on our base natures
We dont have natural rights
OMFG it's pronounced DUE-TEE not DOO-DY. 🤣
i wonder how much this argument would've been avoided if they just looked up the definition of positive vs negative rights
There's that, but then also besides sitchs law there is this ontological debate. Where do rights even come from? How do we justify them? Sitch and Adam think they're not real but their value is and so should be enforced onto people. Issue. If their meaning comes from enforcement then there is no philosophical reason to disagree with a populous who simply enforces other rights or seeks to not enforce them. The idea being here that the rights simply come from what government has control but we must trust that government to agree with us on rights. It's actually a common left vs right argument. I think the right has a good idea with trying to abstract it past the government making it a good beyond control but I think their aim it too narrow. It doesnt have to be this divinity in humans (arbitration being humans are animals and animal havent much right why? Consciousness? OK that's even more arbitration) and probably just do something akin to propertarianism: Rights and cultural values have some utility to the populous and therefore can be treated like a property. We have rights to our property, we have rights to those ideas as a cultural and human good. Something like that.
Social construct to me is just a mutual agreement with society, hence "anti social behaviour" is being a dick and human rights is not "forced" but protected. You have the natural right to protect yourself and if you can't you have a group, family or government. Hence you can't "attack or steal from others as there is the infringement of the other persons right and opens you up to get shot in response
A social construct is implicit, there is no mutual agreement. Essentially you follow rules but can’t rationalise why you follow them, and hence can’t make them explicit and can’t describe to others what the rule is.
Organizing into a group and codifying laws creates (edit: added 'the protection of') rights via social contract, they're based on protecting everyone from the restrictions of individual freedoms by others. Freedoms reasonably and intuitively expected by humans to be optimal for autonomy.
No this is wrong, you don’t justify a right, it is not created by the law hence untouchable by the law. A civil right is but that’s because it’s an extension on a natural right. A social contract does not exist, it was a post hoc justification because of the problem of duties in law. Duties create positive right, which is not an actual thing, in reality it’s a result of getting something after the fact of justice.
The social contract is the contradiction of liberalism. On which the libertarians try to correct, although granted dogmatically so with the ancaps.
Rights aren’t created to restrict they are created to tell us what is untouchable by law. Laws are only there to tell us what not to do. If someone think a law is telling them what to do, they are probably an authoritarian.
@@EconNerd1199-u6i I see the confusion. I added the phrase just now to clarify. Ideally, laws are made to protect individual rights, not create them. I should have said articulate and protect rights, not create.
laws are the effort to protect individual rights from limitation by other individuals or institutions. Laws don't create rights. They should prohibit people from infringement of the rights of others.
We all do happen to agree on fundamental rights because every human shares the same basic intuition about autonomy and the inappropriate limitations thereof by others.
Social contract is a descriptive term of the balance between individual freedoms and acknowledgement of the same rights of others that limit your freedom to encroach on theirs. It's the agreement to follow the golden rule.
The social contract is a metaphor, or we'd all have a copy of the contract we signed.
It's a way to describe the concessions we make to live in society.
Your reference to authoritarianism suggests that any protection of rights by the elected government against those who would infringe upon individual rights is overstepping. But I'm not giving my money to big Ed because he'll beat me up otherwise. And I want the law enforcement people to intervene when he tries to coerce me.
Anything you disagree with?
@@drdaverob if it’s a metaphor how is it a legitimisation of a government? The whole basis is that if people agree to the contract then that gives it a legitimisation of government, but if it now doesn’t exist because it’s a metaphor then it must not now be legitimate. You were correct in your first interpretation the state does tell you what to do via the “social contract” eg. You must pay taxes etc.
The problem of the whole narrative is its contradictory with liberalism tenants because the point is to create circumstances where natural rights come first and then by the agreement of the social contract that leads to duties in order to protect people’s rights but not absolute freedom or actions.
In reality the law should use the silver rule over the golden rule. It should first do no harm. But people don’t like this as they always want other to act in way which will benefit them. They will always invoke a natural duty prior to the law or outside of the law. This is why we have the insanity of the people rejecting natural rights. You have the woke and the Christian theocrats telling you what you ought do and using the law to justify it in the name of security.
@@EconNerd1199-u6i do you believe in objective reality and the shared quest for truth?
@@drdaverob yes, the critique I gave was Humean.
To Sitch, I think you just look on objectivism from wrond side. For me essence would be that people aren't good or bad from the start, just selfish. Being selfish is most neutral thing. And need in evolution. Maybe english world from dictionary isn't fully showing importance of that. It's always base on which you build, like for example if you want to help someone, first you need to be in good situation, otherwise help won't be long and can be insuficent. Even in society you need some selfishness to care first for your family (evolution). All interaction the best mode is free maket, where selfish people get what they want. People just don't understand that money isn't only currency for example people do something for money, power, fame but also for love, recognition, self-fulfillment.
In this case you can donate money for poor people generally for self-fulfillment, to feeling better, to make world better for your friends and family. It's selfish. But help others. We doing everything for selfish reasons, but outcome usually helps someone (ofc. can be also opposite). It;s basic for human reaction and free trade.
Problem is that all of this is in case of rational human, but humans can be very irrational
Spooktober? Sitch confirmed fed
100% agree Adam, I'm here for you and sitch. Not some halfwit in chat, if they want ppl to listen to them, go make your own show!
Sitch talking about hating horses and seeing a guys face after it got kicked by one reveals the origin of the fear of the Horse Sized Duck. Core memory has unlocked.
Seems like Andrew's debate brain was getting too thirsty for too long, and suddenly concocted a conflict to conquer. Had to bare his teeth for some reason.
Meh, it was a friendly debate that needed to be had. And it seems like Andrew did good on planting the seed as Tim is leaning more towards his view on rights as of late.
@@ZeroSmoke. Friendly and needed, for sure.
I think its transparent how much he cares about winning arguments and doesn't care about finding truth and it makes everything he says lack credibility making Andrew not worth listening to.
@theodenkingofbrohan hes out to sell his crap with rhetoric rather than truth.
@@theodenkingofbrohanHe already has the truth: Christ.
Marcuse was Repressive Tolerance which inverted Popper's Paradox of Tolerance in an attempt to solve it.
Popper's formulating = based
Marcuse's distortion = unbased
Not that it matters but Tim has said for a few years that he does believe in a god
It's one of my biggest problems with Wilson. At first I thought it was funny to watch him argue leftists using their own logic, then I realized he actually just thinks like them. He will strip your beliefs down to nothing but when you press him, he just defers his opinions to God and calls it "objective".
Buddy he’s describing what is true not what we ought to do when he talks about rights not existing. Atheists cannot ground their beliefs because it boils down to preferences while God give us duties through his revelations
@@franciscobenitez70
I hear ya, but wouldn't the natural rights, should they exist, cover both the atheist and religious person? If you group all the world's atheists on one side and all the religious folks on the other, the religious revelatory duties will certainly differ, but natural rights would apply to the whole bunch, no?
@@O0kalā what do you mean by natural rights like right to property, right to life stuff like that? As Christians we have a duty to reproduce a duty to treat one another with respect because God made us in his image. That’s all Andrew Wilson tries to say when he points out rights don’t exist.
I'm not familar with Andrew Wilson, so this will be the first time I'll hear him. As an athiest, then unlike Tim Pool..... I already have reality on my side. I'm not saying this to belittle Christians, Buddists, Muslims, or anyone else who believe in the existance of a god or other supernatural invisible beings. You can believe what you want to, as long as it doesn't involve me and you don't force your beliefs on other people.
@franciscobenitez70
Right to life, property, sure...I'm not staking a claim, just enjoying the topic. Outside looking in, it seems like the concept of religious duties in the mind of the religious is the same phenomenon in the secular mind regarding natural rights. They're both inert convictions, both playing the role of the foundation from which to justifiably stand and live. That said, tho, it'll be a never-ending debate about which one is more authentic and therefore real.
Andrew does this no such thing as rights every chance he gets
Adam had a pony?
He really is a Frontier Psychologist!
I just think the whole framing of “natural rights” is completely stupid.
Nice pfp big guy 😎
It's a useful illustration even more useful for the religious to follow. It brings both the altheist and theists together. The problem tends to be that at some point the theist becomes authoritarian and the atheist responds in kind. But all in all it's pretty dumb, you could easily sum it up by saying we need to enforce some kind of rights if we want a society
I think Andrew wasn’t great here, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity by framing its ability to change as a strength, because it doesn’t REALLY change much at all. All doctrine within Catholicism for example needs to be grounded in scripture.
Sacred tradition in Catholicism doesn't have to be grounded in Scripture. They don't believe in Sola Scriptura. They have two sources of divine revelation: Scripture and the Magisterium.
These two can never contradict one another, but neither is grounded in the other. They are separate, equally divine, sources of truth according to Catholicism.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 that’s correct mostly, yes. Sacred tradition comes from the magisterium and it cannot contradict scripture. Point being, the strengths of Catholicism are the strong foundations of sacred scripture and the teachings of the magisterium.
@@Ignatiusofantioch87 I don't disagree. My point was strictly that a teaching of the Magisterium doesn't have to be found in Scripture.
Well, to be fair, not only has the scripture itself changed over the centuries, but how scripture is interpreted has changed.
@@devinmillican2873 the scripture hasn’t changed. And that’s not how translations work. If anything, the translation has gotten better over time. You’re repeating a myth.
I love the concept of "emergent fact"
1:35:54 “can you ever really OWN a horse?” -Jeff Winger
There was a whole lot of doody in this stream 😂
oh yeah something that clinged on my mind jelesy is when one hates on someone who just has it better envey is when both have the same but one just dose it better
If we are to start at an axiom, the principle of reciprocity is a great place to start.
I would like to voice my own opinions, and I should not impede others from doing so lest they in turn censor me. I would like to continue living and would protect myself if attacked, and would not wish others to attack me or be impeded from defending themselves should they be attacked.
Critically, I would not like to be compelled to absent compensation, and would not ask another to do so.
From this last point comes my definition of rights:
An intrinsic behavior of humans which is performed independent of society or material.
Some of the points from the conversation :
You have the right to eat (verb), but food is not guaranteed.
You have the right to bodily autonomy, but a medical professional cannot be compelled (except by their consent/oaths) by force to treat you.
Provided you are properly removed from society, you should have the right to secure/fabricate shelter, but quality/materials are not guaranteed, or so i contend
What does intrinsic mean though? Don't mean sitch over you, but intrinsic human behavior and history shows reciprocity was only liked within groups and even then limited in scope. Men and women raped each other killee robbed and even cheated all the time. It seems intrinsic to human nature that we do what is best for ourselves (survival) and little thought comes after to its long term effects. Not going into r/k theory or even civilizations based on nurturing/fertilization what all that means etc. But is it enough to say that independent of society we have no actual claim to anything? We are not in competition to anyone as we would be in the real world, thus society. It only follows that removing society like putting man on a shit island by himself he is simply doing stuff to survive and cannot impact anyone else even unintentionally by being there. It is to say a good concept for how man might act to survive or what we are capable of, but I find it too limited to answer social questions let alone ideas about governance.
@@kingofthegutter8259 I mean, sure humans have never existed in the Locke/Rousseau "state of nature" and have always come from something like a society even if just a tribe. I also agree that for most humans, life was brutal enough that first order thinking and zero-sum "games" were predominant in society.
I posited that definition of a "right" because we have to have some definition to work with (we are beyond abolishment of rights as a concept). I should amend that this is probably best suited as a definition of "Natural" or "Human" rights. I prefer this definition because I am repulsed by assertions that health care and abortion fall in the same category as self defense and ownership of property.
From the original outline of a right as a "man in the state of nature," I use "intrinsic" to differentiate behaviors that a man on a shit island might exhibit from those preferable to a civilized existence, like voting, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or equality under the law. Not to say that the latter should not also be rights, but rather they should be categorized as civil rights or similar.
I think the cat of "rights" is out of the bag, and it cannot be put back in without civilization imperiling catastrophe. Now we believe we have rights (in much the same way as free will, not to tangent) and have/must structure society to defend them.
We have become obsessed with liberty, and forgotten freedom, or at the very least conflated them. Freedom is a synthesis of liberty and duty. You are at liberty to own fire arms but have a duty to both defend that liberty and exercise prudence in its use.
Apologies if i have neglected to respond to any of your points (i would appreciate clarification where you can). I hope to continue this thread when i am no longer on mobile
Natural rights is the moral justification for the maximum range of actions available to an individual not in a social setting, social setting being defined as any interaction between two or more individuals that possess sentience.
Natural rights exist as long as human beings exist; we are their material form, as our bodies unconsciously act in order to sustain us, such as in the form of our hearts beating and our brains sending signals to our bodies to act. To deny natural rights exist is both to deny the sentience of human beings, while also arguing that they have no inherent moral value.
Whether these statements are true or not is not really the point. The question is of the intent of those who deny the existence of natural rights. Those who do deny the existence of natural rights are inherently a threat based on the internal logic of what natural rights are and how they manifest.
The word "privilege" is used to describe any sort of material guarantee of any sort of social condition by any person or persons or entities made up of persons. Civilization-building is about shifting from focus on natural rights to privileges, as a negotiation to live together in a coherent and rules-based way.
The contention by libertarians is that immoral, impractical, excessively violative, or otherwise unjustifiably exclusionary privileges should not supercede these natural rights. Privileges, however, that are moral, practical, exist in equilibrium, or universal, without possessing any of the other aforementioned negative qualities, are perfectly fine, even if libertarians may disagree about what constitutes each of these qualities, negative or otherwise.
The argument isn't that force is unjustifiable and we should all abide by a social contract instead, the argument is that there's a proper place for force and we shouldn't be applying force except in a narrow window where it's justifiable to do so, so as to not create an unjust society.
Andrew is not making an ought claim. We dont have natural rights to anything, only abilities. If a wild mountain decides you should be eaten and exerts the FORCE to do so, then where is your “natural rights” to life and existence? Rights are made up social constructs that dont exist in material reality. Force is the only thing that matters. Without force, “rights” cannot be enforced
@@casket8530 Natural rights exist intrinsic to the person. I am free to try to defend myself, and it is not immoral to be the aggressor against a lion in the first place. That's the point.
Everything is ultimately a made-up construct that doesn't exist in reality by your reasoning (read: intentional blindness). "Ability" is a concept, not an action, and actions themselves are not material objects, so the argument that "things that are not material are not real" is only true in that you've defined it as such.
In reality however, morality exists as a pattern in the brain, ethics exist as a pattern in the brain that's repeated from person to person. These things are built into our very genes, and rhetoric allows us to express them to help repeat a specific rhetorical manifestation of them from person to person. Then they become real as sound waves in the air, which can then influence higher-intellect beings to change their actions. These things are material on several levels, and people who disagree with that are basically just unga-bunga barbarians who want power without restraint, who should be shunned and destroyed with the power they so desperately crave.
@@ApplesGhost Nonsensical rambling. Again, no one is making ought claims. You only have the ability to defend yourself, but if the lion has greater force, my question to you is where are your rights to live, breathe, eat, exist in this scenario? Ability is not defined as a concept. This is just fact of reality, without FORCE, your “natural rights” do not exist and will constantly be impeded on in material reality. Would like a direct response to my hypothetical.
@@casket8530 Whatever. You're not listening, so there's no reason to say anything more.
It's important to do your doody everyday, or it is bad for you.
Also, rights are the opposite of wrongs, and they're self evident unless you're [redacted].
"Mathematical principles exist in nature and are rules that reality confirms to math, and the numbers that we create are just symbols to represent these set of rules, that explain how reality works "
Tell that to The Dictator with everything called "Aladeen" lol
You can't make God rational rights he/she is necessarily SUPERNATURAL (see how that works)
Can you say what you mean? Can you mean what you say? Look up
I guess you guys decided to stop uploading these to Spotify, so I'll stop looking
There are no natural rights. fact is you are a small villager and part of a tribe. you have as much rights as the rest of the people allow you to have because order has to exist for your little village ruled by your chief to not be completely donezo. So your little rules have to align with your neighbours or if they dont you have to be stronger then them. And that goes up the chain and if it breaks civil wars happen
Tim pool lost this dispute. The things he calls rights aren’t rights. They’re biological functions. Words have semi-ridged meanings.
Right fundamentally requires force. They aren’t synonymous. But to have rights, you need force to enforce rights throughout a society
He definitely did get better overtime.
i can take away your biological functions through force, so you need force to enforce those biological functions too if ya wanna play round about
Rights have to be enforced? So they're not natural? Then rights derive from their enforcement? So they are only meaningful depending on how they're enforced or who enforced them? Interesting. I don't mean to sound as snobby and fuck-boyish like vaush I apologize for the tone.
@@kingofthegutter8259I’ll give you credit for your very self aware statement of disagreement
Nicely done.
Also, you have a very valid point and you’ve persuaded me to think of rights from a different angle.
@@kingofthegutter8259/shorts Some rights are "naturally" easier (physically or psychologically) to enforce than others. The "natural" rights, are, therefore, those rights which men are, by their "nature" able and willing to enforce.
But, yes, rights cannot be divorced from enforcement. Fundamentally, rights are a linguistic tool used by a group (usually a NATION) to negotiate the parameters for engaging the militia--i.e., a collective statement and agreement about what we, the armed citizenry, are willing to fight and die for.
The erosion of our rights is really an atrophy of our willingness to fight and die for "transcendent" (i.e., non-material) values like "liberty, equality and brotherhood". And the atrophy has been accelerated by the destruction of religion, which provides a shared frame under which transcendent sacrifice "makes sense".
In the absence of that shared frame, such sacrifice is openly mocked and described either as oppressive (if the sacrifice is seen as pernicious, e.g., when traditionalists defend strict gender roles at great cost to their social reputation) or as foolish (if the sacrifice is simply seen as unfair or illogical, e.g., when a religious man lays down his life for his country).
Here we learn that Adam was a trust fund baby lol
27:47 yes Adam now you are the liberal and the libertarian, it’s almost like what separates them is a principle of justice. And liberals contradict that by the social contract argument which allows some religious zealots and social justice activist and communist to impose their rules on society via a natural duty. Which is a complete contradiction because a duty must have a negative right in the first place, if I’m wrong someone can prove me wrong by stating how we have a positive right which does not pre-exist society. That it, that all the libertarian position is, and then 5 different people tried to create legal principles which fixed that issue and you all like to take the strawman because you don’t have the capability to create a duty with out the same magical reasoning you mock everyone for.
28:22 the duty only exist in society not outside it.
29:34 yes, and Andrew is dumb because he is creating a duty to god before any right has even been formed, because god exist prior to law, or prior to the abstract moral rules of society. You literally have to create an entire mythical construct in order to justify them.
14:15 So the thing that Sitch and Rand detractors forget about Objectivism is the name of the philosophy. When you set yourself upon your objective, and look for the best way objectively to achieve it, the average antisocial actions is rarely the correct/moral way to go.
In objectivism could you theoretically allow killing your way to the objective, sure. But in most cases that strategy would have you living like Stalin, looking over your shoulder and peeing yourself alone when you just need a doctor to give rudimentary aid. And since that is not a selfishly successful success way to live, it would be immoral.
You don’t need god for natural rights, the argument was they can come from either of the three basis. God, Nature or Reason. These all pre existing man and hence pre exist law created by man.
This is the basis of Liberalism.
What you are invoking is called a natural duty(“positive rights”which is dumb), which can lead to authoritarianism because you are obligating people to act in certain ways. But a duty cannot pre exist a right, hence the term natural duty is false because there is no duty in reason or nature of man pre society. It’s only in society that a duty can be invoked, and they can only be invoked in the protection of a right.
Marx believed in a natural duty ie the labour theory of value.
Rawls believed in social justice, however it was debunked because if people are not intentionally producing outcomes consciously and this does not violate an individual natural right then the action cannot be constituted as just or unjust, hence a “social” justice can mean what ever they want it to mean. It allows them to create legal duties based on whatever inequality they find.
Natural rights are not a fiction, empirically you have the capability to think, you evolved in nature to think, therefore you have the right to belief. You evolved the capability to speak, therefore you have the right to free speech. If a society takes these rights away they decline in an empirical way. They exist as an empirical property of good and just societies, if you ignore them society goes to hell. Even an empiricist must agree as a general rule these abstractions produce a good society, they aren’t just a concept because they correlate with good societies.
Might makes right is not apart of natural rights, rather they give the basis for what is just or unjust. If someone uses might in an unjust way then it is simply that. Might doesn’t pre exist society. So this argument doesn’t hold.
If people are constraining freedom then it’s an unjust action. Again just because some can do an action does not mean that action does not mean that natural rights don’t exist. 7:21 Adam’s argument makes no sense??? He is just describing a people acting unjustly, and then saying that is natural when in reality he is describing a general rule of action, the question is about justice and law. Is that action just or unjust and clear he thinks it’s unjust, but where did his theory of justice come from? If you enact violence on the principle of saving someone’s rights, you’ve invoke a duty but that duty didn’t come before the rights, it was in the protection of those rights. That’s what Civil rights are meant to do. Keep in mind, a war definitionally, must involve a society.
1:11:46 While I find Andrew’s style of argument abrasive and his personality woefully unlikable I don’t think hypocrisy is what he’s doing here. He finally stated his axiomatic belief which comes from God after trying to get Tim to establish his.
I’m a Christian. I think this dude stinks.
How does he stink
It is contradictory to state that you have values that cant be proven as a concept ontological and then throw away the is/ought gap by stating I guess it's good enough to die for huh? And might makes right as well your opinions about natural rights coincide because you acknowledge the anti-liberal presupposition that power is derived and not something that sprouts like emn do from blank slates but you are wrapped in the liberal idea of man comming from God you cannot justify it. Find another perspective that is liberal apologetic ok? That's what I did.
Y Ou continue to not understand how natural rights work. Natural rights does not mean "rights that do not need to be defended becuase they will magically be protected". Dev has an understnading of how Natural rights wor ks that he has articulated a clear understanding of natural rights so may be he can explain it to you. your position of what nat ural rights are is a strawman. We conend that the state doesn't need to be w hat defends these rights. Please cease this strawman.
"We have now hit philosophical rock bottom with the shovel of a stupid question." - Sam Harris
This was Andrew bringing in his virtue signal of religion. Yes, he went in wanting this argument. Tim also gave him props for a decent disagreement after this little debate. Tim doesn't get to debate worldview as much as he would like. Edit: I do like Andrew Wilson and both Tim Pool. They both are on the same team and understand this. Echo chambers are not fun unless you are farther left.
Whenever people say that they have an innate right to something provided to them by some higher power they just immediately lose me, it's not really persuasive, and it just seems so stupid to me.
I cant agree with the idea that you have a 'duty' to preserve other peoples rights. I can understand where that idea comes from and why its theoretically good but I'm a cynic at heart.
It reminds me of that Dune quote “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
This was such a dumb argument. Rights come from self preservation.
@@Fabric_Hater if rights come from from self preservation how would you not say stealing is a right because I steal food from someone else so I can live lol
@@franciscobenitez70 bc that violates their self preservation. Duh.
@@Fabric_HaterYou dont see how circular that logic is?
@@Fabric_Hater but the person wants to live so will you violate his?
@@franciscobenitez70 nope.
hey dude ill call in and be like yeah long time listener hahaahahahaha but i will call in and talk to yall
Might makes right. There is literally no other objective rule to our society if we do not believe in them being imposed by a god (i personally do not). Every other right comes from whatever the people who have the might have decided to enforce.
"But this makes society thrive" ...and? If you are honest with yourself, most people do not believe that, they choose their tribe, be it a nation, a family, a circle of friends, or whatever else, and they labour to make that group thrive, at the expense of those they see outside their tribe.