What right do you have?

Originally Posted by Starman
... thus freedom requires constraints.
... Certain communist ideologies definitely do not accept the concept of individuality.

Originally Posted by inavalan

These two assertions rub me wrong, a little. The first is an oxymoron. The second sounds too kind, and that's a dangerous mistake.

Oxymoron in is, yet it is very relevant to the thread. We all feel we should have the freedom to believe what we want, and to integrate those beliefs into our actions. We might say it is our right to do so. Yet invariable, those beliefs and actions end up in direct conflict with others beliefs and actions and we struggle to figure out who's rights take precedence, and often it ends up being might rather then right that decides.

Certain spiritual ideologies definitely do not accept the concept of individuality. I think that is a mistake, though not quite so dangerous a one as one has eternity to correct it.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Perhaps one would? In fact, there have been, perhaps are, and will be many more Hitlers, of many different shapes and sizes. But how far are you willing to take that argument? If you knew a lunatic was about to walk into a grade school with a semi-automatic weapon would you act, or would you say, why bother to risk my life and stop this one, another could just come along anyway?

If I knew a 'lunatic was about to walk into a grade school with a semi-automatic weapon' how would I react, is a tough question to answer.

I once had a nice young gentleman pull a gun out, pointed it close range to me and said he was going to kill me. I went into automatic mode and took the gun away from him. It was a six-shooter. I was so mad, I held the hammer down and turned the cylinder. I assumed I sheared off the firing pin. Then I gave him back his gun. He took the gun and once more said he was going to shoot me. I jumped him and got him down and began slapping each side of his face. Finally I got up, turned around and walked away while he was screaming for his brother to get the sawed off shotgun so he could kill me.

My advice, would be to probably do nothing and let the 'Universe' resolve the issue but then there is the part of me that jumps into automatic mode which means I probably would disarm the 'lunatic'.

Originally Posted by Starman

Well said, but the word "natural" is often used in faulty ways. What one person may think is right another person, about the same thing, may think is wrong. Free speech is limited, so are freedom of actions. The more freedom a person has the more responsibility they have, thus freedom requires constraints.

We ae not free to run amok, we are not free to do whatever we want, and society imposes restrictions in accordance to what they believe crosses the line on unacceptable things that should not be done. Like girls getting and education in Afghanistan. It comes down to the dominant values of the masses, which as you have said, leaves individuals vulnerable.

Not all cultures believe in individuality. Certain communist ideologies definitely do not accept the concept of individuality. In those instances the State is more important than the individual. Even in spiritual freedom there are parameters that supersede the individual. Religious and spiritual groups are often exposing that we embrace something larger than ourselves.

Rights, inalienable, natural, or otherwise, are often determined by the masses; which in turn may just be a matter of cultural tradition or individual conditioning. Is it my place to right what I think is wrong; in my opinion societies moves rather slowely in that regard. Most people find change difficult; the restrictions placed due to this coronavirus are a case in point. I remember causally talking with a black man back in the 1970's who had been programmed to believe that everyone needed to "stay in their place," he referred to "not rocking the boat." I found his mindset interesting. There is a book about slavery, written in 1973, titled "Our Portion of Hell." One of the lines in this book says "been down so long it seems like up to me."

Natural rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is a rather old school of ethics, so I will leave you to argue with the professors of philosophy whether they are using the term "natural" incorrectly. Anyway, I suspect that they might say that natural rights determined by the masses is something of an oxymoron or at least a bit of juxtaposition. I doubt many would agree that the Nazi's had a natural right to try to exterminate the Jews, even if the masses had given them the legal right in their own country. If fact, the trials at Nuremberg were based on the premise that the legal rights of a society do not take precedence over the natural rights of humanity, from which the concept that following orders does not always absolve one from responsibility for ones actions.

Most I think would agree that we cannot run amok, the conflict starts when one tries to define the word amok.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

If I knew a 'lunatic was about to walk into a grade school with a semi-automatic weapon' how would I react, is a tough question to answer.
.........

My advice, would be to probably do nothing and let the 'Universe' resolve the issue but then there is the part of me that jumps into automatic mode which means I probably would disarm the 'lunatic'.

Yes, it is a tough question to answer. Sounds like the thinker up in the cerebral cortex might take the safe way, but another part would act.

Which part do you thing would intervene? and why?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Natural rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is a rather old school of ethics, so I will leave you to argue with the professors of philosophy whether they are using the term "natural" incorrectly. Anyway, I suspect that they might say that natural rights determined by the masses is something of an oxymoron or at least a bit of juxtaposition. I doubt many would agree that the Nazi's had a natural right to try to exterminate the Jews, even if the masses had given them the legal right in their own country. If fact, the trials at Nuremberg were based on the premise that the legal rights of a society do not take precedence over the natural rights of humanity, from which the concept that following orders does not always absolve one from responsibility for ones actions.

Most I think would agree that we cannot run amok, the conflict starts when one tries to define the word amok.

Virtually every country in this World has given themselves the right for their citizens to terminate certain lives if they so desire with full immunity. What Hitler, history says was wrong but people, for some odd reason, people can not see what is happening today as having any consequences - moral or legal.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Virtually every country in this World has given themselves the right for their citizens to terminate certain lives if they so desire with full immunity. What Hitler, history says was wrong but people, for some odd reason, people can not see what is happening today as having any consequences - moral or legal.

Yes, they have, the masses have determined what the right to life, liberty, and how one may pursue happiness means. Along with the rest of the moral code it expects us all to follow. Of course, the masses would like to believe they don't do so based on willy nilly wims. They may cite God as the source of their moral code and then fight about what God wants them to do, or they may appeal to inalienable natural rights and all of the caveats that go along with that. Those who don't agree with what the masses determine is the right set of values and moral code, which to some extent is each individual, might say that "for some odd reason, people can not see what is happening today as having any consequences - moral or legal", and in most cases they would be correct. Nobody seems to be able to prove what God wants for certain, nor can the philosophers all agree on which rights are natural and inalienable. Without such clear anchor points from which to secure a sound moral code for society, the masses end up having to figure it out for themselves.

Despite what spiritual and communist ideologies might espouse, masses is just a name for a large collection of individuals.
Some of those individuals may concern themselves with figuring out what God really wants.
Some of those individuals may concern themselves for what rights really are natural and inalienable, and what that truthfully means.
Some of those individuals may concern themselves with using all of the confusion about what is right and wrong to advance and justify their own vain human agendas.
But most of those individuals (all to some extent) are probably just subconsciously trying to figure out what they are supposed to be thinking as a member in good standing of the masses. When their own values and morals don't align with what they believe they should be, whether God given, naturally right, or more likely, what they feel society expects of them, they instinctively feel ashamed of themselves and try to realign their values to match.

Perhaps that is why John's brain's cerebral cortex may say let the universe handle it, yet John's reptile brain jumps into action to stop the child murdering gunman anyway. Instinctively, reptile brain John feels that society would expect it of him and he would be ashamed and perhaps shunned if he sat by and did nothing. Of course, there is the possibility that John himself could get shot so John's reptile brain must consider that danger as well, so perhaps by the time John's reptile brain had decided what he should do it would be too late to act.

It is an interesting quandary this push and pull between the two brains. One the thinker and planner, the ego and superego, and one the ancient animal instinct, the id. Now if I am a German in Germany in the 1930 and 40s, I expect my ego, superego, and id, are in quite the state of conflict and confusion. What is happening is wrong, but is it dangerous to speak out against it. The id is afraid, but also feels the drive to do what is right and is relying on that confused ego and superego to tell it that. One can stand up for what they believe is right and face the existential danger that comes with it, or one can adjust what they believe is right to match what society expects and resolve the internal conflict and shame that way. Of course society is just another word for those masses who are individuals all trying to figure out what society expects as well. It would seem nobody is really in control of what society expects. Yes some may push or pull in one direction or another, but the average of what the masses think is right, is like a great ocean liner drifting about in the storm, and occasionally it smashes up against the reef and disaster is the result. What is one to do amidst all the chaos? Perhaps, being just one person with very little power, one just withdraws and hides hoping to survive it all themselves. Those on the shore watching the drama unfold condemn the lot of them, crew and passengers, and exclaim how different they would have behaved had they been on board.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Perhaps that is why John's brain's cerebral cortex may say let the universe handle it, yet John's reptile brain jumps into action to stop the child murdering gunman anyway. Instinctively, reptile brain John feels that society would expect it of him and he would be ashamed and perhaps shunned if he sat by and did nothing. Of course, there is the possibility that John himself could get shot so John's reptile brain must consider that danger as well, so perhaps by the time John's reptile brain had decided what he should do it would be too late to act.

Not quite that simple.

Most people will tell you what they would do, but in reality, what they might do is 'freeze'.

I have been inside two building at different times when a person hit the gas pedal instead of the breaks and crashed into the building. In both cases, almost everybody inside 'froze'. 'Freezing up' seems to be the typical response when something happens very fast. Generally, it affects people so much that they can not even speak - just frozen.

[SnowFerret]

Originally Posted by ketzer

What right do you have to believe what you do?
What right do you have to expect others to believe what you do?
Do those rights carry with them any responsibilities?
Does exercising those rights too freely carry any dangers?

I have ALL right to believe what i do
I have NO rights to expect others to believe what i do as they have their own rigths to believe what they do
All rights carry responsibilities and beliefs as well, as i would act according to my believes and then make choices to follow them or have integrity so that is responsibility...and my rights would be to respect the rights of others and that is responsibility as well...
I think that one has to be free of their beliefs as freely as they wish...but indeed when in society and with others in communication...there is a risk that comes form expressing freely our beliefs...one risk and to hurt someone feelings or move their own believes and so risk to loose being popular or even shocking someone else...or to be hurtful to someone we care about...the other risk is unfortunately that some people can't accept other beliefs then their own and so become angry at what they do not control...but the risk is personal and a choice to make again to have integrity as much as possible...In society our personal beliefs even if free and justifiable, have to be inhibited and kept within laws, rights of others and respect of others beliefs sometimes very different then ours...our beliefs can't break the law or safety of others or rights of others to be different...

[SnowFerret]

Originally Posted by ketzer

What right do you have to believe what you do?
What right do you have to expect others to believe what you do?
Do those rights carry with them any responsibilities?
Does exercising those rights too freely carry any dangers?

Thanks Ketzer for this interesting wondering...

I have ALL right to believe what i do
I have NO rights to expect others to believe what i do as they have their own rigths to believe what they do
All rights carry responsibilities and beliefs as well, as i would act according to my believes and then make choices to follow them or have integrity so that is responsibility...and my rights would be to respect the rights of others and that is responsibility as well...
I think that one has to be free of their beliefs as freely as they wish...but indeed when in society and with others in communication...there is a risk that comes form expressing freely our beliefs...one risk and to hurt someone feelings or move their own believes and so risk to loose being popular or even shocking someone else...or to be hurtful to someone we care about...the other risk is unfortunately that some people can't accept other beliefs then their own and so become angry at what they do not control...but the risk is personal and a choice to make again to have integrity as much as possible...In society our personal beliefs even if free and justifiable, have to be inhibited and kept within laws, rights of others and respect of others beliefs sometimes very different then ours...our beliefs can't break the law or safety of others or rights of others to be different...

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Not quite that simple.

Most people will tell you what they would do, but in reality, what they might do is 'freeze'.

I have been inside two building at different times when a person hit the gas pedal instead of the breaks and crashed into the building. In both cases, almost everybody inside 'froze'. 'Freezing up' seems to be the typical response when something happens very fast. Generally, it affects people so much that they can not even speak - just frozen.

Yes, freezing up is what I am referring to by that last sentence in my post.

Of course, there is the possibility that John himself could get shot so John's reptile brain must consider that danger as well, so perhaps by the time John's reptile brain had decided what he should do it would be too late to act.

When reptile brain doesn't instinctively know what to do, it just doesn't react very well if at all. My guess is that not everybody froze, some may have put their arms up to block the building, silly reptile brain. It relies on ego brain to resolve the confusion, but ego brain is a slow fellow who must plod over the facts and there is no time for that. Interestingly, reptile brain often does know what to do and reflexively reacts without consulting ego brain. Yet when asked why it did what it did, ego brain will tell you all about why it made the decision that in truth it was not involved in at all. Ego brain is not really lying as it believes it itself, it believes it is at the wheel, silly ego brain. It has gotten away with this fraud for so long because neuroscience only recently had the equipment to catch it in its self deceptions. Many ethicists and legal scholars have yet to catch up with this new found fact. Many still believe that ego brain is really responsible as that is what their ego brains would tell them, silly ethicists and legal scholars. IDK, maybe it is ironic justice that ego brain gets held accountable and punished for what reptile brain really did without its knowledge, after all, it has been taking credit for reptile brains reflexive actions all along. Of course as a source of deterrent, both get the same punishment, yet reptile brain will not learn from it as it will react from reflex again, and ego brain won't be available next time it needs to react fast, so for that, such punishments are not very effective. Yet society still feels the right to judge and punish all the same, and it expects that if it punishes hard enough in won't happen again, silly society.


..