The anti-PC police are in the wrong


I’m really fed up with all the op-eds emerging now, decrying those wimpy college students and political correctness and trigger warnings and safe spaces. They’re all from obnoxious ignoramuses who are really trying to defend their sheltered privilege from criticism, so they’re all playing a game of IKYABWAI. So here are a couple of strong rebuttals.

  • “PC Culture” isn’t Killing Higher Ed (But Your Crappy Op-Eds Might Be).

    The last thing higher education needs is one more old white guy bleating about “political correctness run amok,” when it’s just a slightly more genteel phrase for “people not like me getting all uppity.” If you’re upset about other people winning in the marketplace of ideas, maybe it’s because your ideas suck. If you think today’s students are coddled, and don’t have “grit,” you either don’t teach or aren’t paying attention. To see students calling out power inequalities and inequitable behaviors is not some sort of failure, but a triumph of critical thinking and intellectual agency. If you think students calling institutions, their administrations, or other authorities out on bad thinking, institutional inequities, or general bullshit is “silly,” or “killing higher education,” maybe you’re the delicate little flower who can’t abide an intellectual challenge.

  • Straw Freshmen: Why the War on Campus PC Culture is Bullshit.

    Take the “trigger warning” as an example. There are still no colleges or universities that mandate trigger warnings as a practice in any field of study. Most cases of them being used have been in teaching sensitive issues of rape, abuse, or assault to classes with young women. The overarching point in “Coddling,” that trigger warnings actually can’t improve mental health, misses the point of the reality of these women. A new study from the Association of American Universities finds that over a fifth of all college women are sexually assaulted at some time in their enrollment. Another 47% have experienced sexual harassment and another 12% have experienced intimate partner violence. This means that any given classroom with any significant amount of women could be composed of up to a third or more of women who are processing rapes, assaults, harassment, or violence. Given the absolutely horrendous state of affairs within colleges (and largely, the country) in handling rape cases and pursuing justice and health for these women, it is likely that most of these survivors have not received or are not receiving the proper therapy and healing in order to be able to process triggering images and words without suffering further damage.

  • ‘Coddled’ students and their ‘safe spaces’ aren’t the problem, college official says. Bigots are.

    Therefore, whether one is suspicious of the merits of college as a whole or cynical about the existence of “safe spaces,” the truth of the matter is that “coddled” college students aren’t the problem.

    The real culprits — on campuses and in the real world — are the persistent effects of homophobia, income inequality, misogyny, poverty, racism, sexism, white supremacy and xenophobia.

    When students refuse to accept discrimination on college campuses, they’re learning important lessons about how to fight it everywhere.

That last one makes an excellent point: the anti-PC language does the opposite of what its obnoxious proponents claim. It’s not about advocating for free speech. It’s about using accusations of “PC” and mocking efforts to give minorities a voice to silence critics of the status quo.

Comments

  1. Akira MacKenzie says

    Reposting my comment on “The Tattoed Professor” piece:

    Back in the early 90s, I fell hook, line, and sinker for the Right’s scare stories about how Radical professors with the help of militant left-wing students were using intimidation, speech codes, and trumped-up charges of racism and sexism to silence truth-telling conservatives and brainwash America into a freedom-hating, atheist, Marxist dictatorship. Of course, when I went to college, the only instance when I ran afoul of what we would deem the “PC Thought Police” was when the opinion editor of the right-wing student newspaper (i.e. The UWM Times)I wrote for dropped the n-bomb in an article about the O.J. Simpson verdict. At the time, I was very uncomfortable with the article and thought the editor went to far, but when the African American Student Union and other groups started demonstrating in the commons, I foolishly decided to stick to our First Amendment guns and definitely cry “FREE SPPECH” at the ravening liberal hordes out to “censor” us.

    Two decades later, I realize that like the situation at The Times, that the “politically correct” have a legitimate grievance while its “victims” deserved whatever consequences they got for being loud-mouth, racist, asses.

  2. Doubting Thomas says

    It’s so easy to throw around this “PC” accusation because politically correct is such a odd and obscured way of saying, don’t be a dick. I’m not being politically correct when I avoid using racial or gender slurs, I’m just being nice. If someone is called out for being PC, it’s like being told, you should be more of an asshole. So, don’t hide who you are, don’t be PC, go ahead and say what you want to and let others know that you are in fact a dick.

  3. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’ve always taken the “PC” accusation as on of two things. First, I have “freeze speech”, you can’t criticize it. And second, you aren’t being shut up by my bullying. Waaahhhh.

  4. dannorth says

    The best reason for eliminating the notion of political correctness would be so that bigots couldn’t continue to preface their bigoted rants with “maybe I’m not politically correct but…”

  5. says

    “maybe I’m not politically correct but…”

    I usually try to get in edgewise, “you mean you don’t agree with the consensus…”

  6. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    dannorth,

    Instead “maybe I’m not politically correct but…” they would use the ever popular “no offense but…” .
    I can barely see the difference between the two, since they are nearly always followed by something hateful, bigoted or at the very least mildly insulting.

  7. Michael says

    I have no problem with trigger warnings or safe spaces in the contexts you mention.

    However I’ve seen several posts, particularly on Jerry Coyne’s site, pointing out where certain colleges have used this type of language to censor or deny free speech, in the sense of preventing differing opinions from being expressed (and in some cases trying to get the people fired who expressed them). The term coddling is used when safe spaces are offered simply because the students heard opinions they disagree with on controversial subjects, eg. atheism, criticism of religion, when this does not fall into the type of traumatic situations you mentioned (ie. rape or assault is much more traumatic than hearing someone criticize your religion).

    So I think most people would agree with you about the cases you mentioned. Does that still apply to the ones I mentioned?

  8. microraptor says

    I’ve seen Coyne bring up things like trigger warnings and “coddling” on his site, and every time it’s turned out to be factually inaccurate depiction of an event just so Coyne can pat himself on the back for how much more badass a liberal he was back in the 70s when he was in school than these college students we have today.

  9. qwints says

    Akira MacKenzie @3, the norms and rules for student speech on college campuses. In what contexts should you say something even if it hurts someone else? What is an appropriate response to speech you disagree with? In what contexts and how should a school punish or restrict speech?

  10. says

    I think the problem ultimately is people ought to be free to say, nay, even do bigoted things along a certain range of cases. I think it is really an unproductive area of discussion to argue about free speech vs. freeze peach. My intuition is the whole conversation is a red herring. The social justice left objects (as it should) to bigoted behavior but most types of bigoted behavior should be (legally/professionally ?) protected and allowed. I’m not so sure that the social (soft) pressure that can be brought to bear will be enough and harder pressure is unwise.

  11. microraptor says

    Mike Smith @13:

    People are free to say and do bigoted things. What they’re complaining about is the fact that they can’t act like a bigoted asshole without getting a reputation for being a bigoted asshole.

  12. Vivec says

    People are indeed free to say and do bigoted things to a degree. Other people are free to criticize or fire them for making the choice to voice or do said things. That the government can’t prevent you from being a bigot doesn’t mean businesses, websites, or private institutions have to give you a platform.

  13. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    but most types of bigoted behavior should be (legally/professionally ?) protected and allowed. I

    Ever hear of anti-discrimination laws? Some actions are plain offensive, and shouldn’t be protected. Or are you a separate-but-equal type?

  14. Vivec says

    Also I think the types of bigotry that wouldn’t be illegal either as incitement or discrimination is actually pretty small. Certainly not “most”.

  15. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Michael @ 10,

    Can you give some specific examples of what you are talking about, which have not been shown to be misrepresentations of what really happened? E.g., “So-and-so at University X was suspended for saying ‘Bless you’ after a student who was an atheist sneezed in their presence.” If you can find such examples we can discuss them, but the kind of vague generalities you mention don’t lend themselves to productive discussion.

  16. Vivec says

    I feel like a lot of this ties back to bigots hating it when their current favorite crank gets “no-platformed” or what the fuck ever. If your version of freeze peach would require college to give, say, David Icke a platform, I think your version is silly.

  17. says

    @Nerd

    Yes I have heard of them. I have mixed feelings about them. I’m not so sure that Gov’t should require private business to hire people of color. I’m not sure if I’m OK with the state forcing a racist person to treat black people equally in the market place. Or more to the point the state forcing a black person to treat whites equally given how the laws are written.

    I am, naturally, against unequal treatment by the state, ala Jim Crow.

    @What A Maroon

    Yes. I’m thinking of the couple of cases in which a non state (private firm) employee lost their job because of bigoted Facebook posts. That is sort of medium pressure that I feel goes to far, maybe; there’s no injustice on the private firm’s part but it strikes me as an indecent* thing to do. I would prefer a softer pressure.

    Boycotts, as well, are not unjust but indecent* at times. Like the LGBT+ boycott of Chic-fil-a over the owner’s comments about marriage. That seems too harsh.

    *philosophical term of art. I getting from Thomson. I don’t literally mean decency.

  18. screechymonkey says

    I wish that the Tattooed Prof hadn’t trotted out the “doin it for the clicks” argument:

    The most immediate problem of sloppy hit-pieces like Reynolds’s is their sheer laziness. Find an episode of controversy on a campus (if it’s a negative reaction to right-wing stuff, all the better), deploy the students-as-coddled-whiny-special-little-snowflakes trope, watch the clicks roll in and the derision flow. Cash check, repeat.

    It’s bullshit when the Big Name Atheists use it against “outragebloggers,” and it’s bullshit here.

    I think the WaPo piece is much more persuasive (though I recognize it’s making a different argument). Even if particular arguments by campus activists are overreactions or just plain wrong, that’s not a sign of some broad defect in campus culture. It’s a sign that people sometimes make bad arguments — especially younger people who are still learning which battles to fight and which arguments to make. And as Akira McKenize’s example @2 illustrates, there’s no shortage of conservatives on campus picking dumb fights and making lousy arguments. Neither is a sign of a dysfunctional campus culture.

  19. Vivec says

    I am, naturally, against unequal treatment by the state, ala Jim Crow.

    So you oppose de jure racial discrimination but you’re okay with de facto discrimination? Yikes, I hope you have no input on policies.

  20. Vivec says

    I also don’t buy that “controversy for clicks” is bullshit. If there’s anything that this current republican primary should tell you, it’s that “political correctness” is a hugely successful dog whistle that wins you major points certain demographics.

  21. says

    @vivec

    de facto discrimination by the state is also a problem, obviously. Are you willing to compel a Catholic priest to perform a same sex marriage? yes or no?

    I say no. I’m not sure why that is different from, say, compelling Hobby Lobby to treat two male employee as married vis-a-vis benefits.

  22. Ryan Cunningham says

    Can you give some specific examples of what you are talking about…

    Yes. I’m thinking of the couple of cases in which a non state (private firm) employee lost their job because of bigoted Facebook posts.

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

  23. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Ryan Cunningham,

    Telling, isn’t it? And my post wasn’t even directed at them (unless Michael and Mike Smith are the same person).

  24. Vivec says

    Are you willing to compel a Catholic priest to perform a same sex marriage?

    As it is? No, because they’re nothing more than fancy LARPers chanting latin.

    If they want their church to be an actual business? Yes, absolutely. Religion shouldn’t protect you from having to follow anti-discrimination in business laws.

  25. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I am, naturally, against unequal treatment by the state, ala Jim Crow.

    Gee, I know better, as you sound like a liberturd who would discriminate given the chance. Private companies, like religions, are not an excuse to discriminate. But you support such bigotry.

    Are you willing to compel a Catholic priest to perform a same sex marriage? yes or no?

    Irrelevant assholery. No priest/parson/minister/rabbi/imam has to perform any ceremony just because someone off the street asks them to now. Because they aren’t in commerce. Why even bring it up? Right, you are trying vainly to find a wedge for bigotry.

  26. trixiefromthelurk says

    Sorry if I sound too Pollyanna-ish (do people still use that term? I’m really not that old. How about Canadiana-ish?) but this little gem from the CBC this morning :

    …the point is that political correctness is often just early-onset politeness.

    I like that. But of course, outside of TheLurk, the whacks are not interested in politeness.

  27. says

    @vivec

    “As it is? No, because they’re nothing more than fancy LARPers chanting latin.”

    The church doesn’t provide anything from any atheistic perspective (except maybe being a parasite) but I don’t think that follows from the Catholic perspective; it certainly doesn’t follow from secularism… I know many queer people who want the LARPing with the Latin. I don’t know how to separate this desire, which is seemingly more important than say getting a chicken sandwich, from other more obviously commercial aspects.

    “If they want their church to be an actual business? Yes, absolutely. ”

    I don’t see any way that the church isn’t a business in a the relevant sense of the term. It certainty is providing services to parishioners.

    ” Religion shouldn’t protect you from having to follow anti-discrimination in business laws.”

    So you are willing to use to power of the state to compel obedience to a mere moral dictate? A single act of discrimination is not an actionable harm in of itself. It’s too slight.

    @nerd

    “Gee, I know better, as you sound like a liberturd who would discriminate given the chance.”

    Yes (sarcasm) because everything that isn’t forbidden is mandatory. I am not a libertarian. I’m a classical liberal. I also think acting racist, sexist, hetero-sexist is a grave moral wrong. So much so I am generally pro-boycott business that do discriminate. Even through I think the boycott was a bit much, I haven’t eaten at Chic-fil-a since the dust up.

    “No priest/parson/minister/rabbi/imam has to perform any ceremony just because someone off the street asks them to now.”

    Right, that is my point. I think most people will feel the intuition that forcing a priest to act against his religious conscience is wrong. I’m asking why two similar cases with only one possible difference are treated differently.

    “Because they aren’t in commerce.”

    Yes, but why is that relevant?

    “Why even bring it up?”

    to provide a solid case in which all can agree that legally protecting discriminatory behavior is the right thing to do? Look if you can’t agree that priests should not be forced to perform religious duties against their conscience regardless of the content of their religious mores, then we are at an impasse.

    It strikes me as obvious–legally, morally, politically, philosophically–that priests should be protected in all circumstances for any reason they wish to invoke to not be compelled to perform a religious duty. It is almost irrelevant to the obviousness of the case if the underlying reasoning is racist, sexist, abliest, heterosexist, etc.

  28. Vivec says

    I know many queer people who want the LARPing with the Latin.

    Tough titty for them. The church isn’t obligated to “marry” them any more than I’m obligated to invite a priest over for some D&D.

    I use scare quotes because purely religious marriage has no legal weight – its no more a real marriage than me a piece of paper that says “diploma” is a real degree.

    It certainty is providing services to parishioners.

    If mumbling latin to an audience is somehow a business, is my D&D group a business?

    So you are willing to use to power of the state to compel obedience to a mere moral dictate?

    Uh, yes? That is literally the purpose of laws.

  29. Michael says

  30. Vivec says

    My opposition to forcing priests to perform gay marriages has nothing to do with their “religious conscience”, whatever the fuck that means. It has to do with them being glorified lecturers. If they were tax-paying people selling a good, they should conform to business laws.

    Case in point – if a church wanted to sell rosaries or t-shirts, it should not be able to discriminate in who it sells them to, and should pay taxes on them, just like any other t-shirt or necklace store.

  31. Vivec says

    Oh god, another “”””””no-platforming””””” idiot. Disinviting a speaker does not take away anyone’s freedom of speech. You are not obligated to pay and give a platform to everyone that wants to give a speech.

    Also, petitions are a protected form of free speech and protest, so IDK what you’re on about there.

  32. says

    Jebus, Michael, did you even fucking bother to read the links in this post? Did you even glance at them? Because they do happen to directly address several of the claims you’re making, but of course, you just sail on, obliviously.

  33. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yes, but why is that relevant?

    Why are you asking such a stupid question? You have no point.
    Commerce means yours doors and goods are open to everybody who walks in. You can’t deny service to anybody based on that. You do have the choice of closing your business.
    A religion is more like a private club, where a certain latitude is allowed, namely members and their guests only. I’ve attended catholic ceremonies where the sacraments were given. I didn’t partake, as I’m not a member. Their rules, and simple politeness. As you should know, if you weren’t being deliberately an asshole.

  34. says

    So you are willing to use to power of the state to compel obedience to a mere moral dictate?

    Clearly, since if it were so obviously a moral thing to do, wouldn’t everyone be doing it?

    Society exists to sort out the differences where practicality and obviousness are insufficient. Mere survival is not enough; you cannot force every child to learn about heat by experiencing the stove. Civilization is distilled into the state; that is its power.

  35. says

    @vivac

    “Tough titty for them. The church isn’t obligated to “marry” them any more than I’m obligated to invite a priest over for some D&D.

    I use scare quotes because purely religious marriage has no legal weight – its no more a real marriage than me a piece of paper that says “diploma” is a real degree.”

    I do agree it’s tough for them. I do agree that the state shouldn’t intervene. But despite the religious ceremony having no legal weight, it’s clear that many people do value the religious ceremony for its own sake, or expression of religious faith or as a family obligation. It is a good, have some empathy, and some people find meaning in it. If your basis for allowing discrimination is whether a service has meaning well I think there is more weight to compel a priest to preform the marriage than, say compel a florist to provide flowers. Indeed, only one Catholic church can provide a Catholic wedding, but there’s a ton of florist that can provide flowers.

    “If mumbling latin to an audience is somehow a business, is my D&D group a business?”

    I don’t see a principled reason why it can’t be. Are dues (tithes) expected? Your D&D group is providing you goods (i.e. social outlet, friendship, D&D experience) and there are cost involved (the rule books, dice, pen and paper, time etc.).

    I agree a church, or a D&D groups are not entirely business like, but I don’t see a relevant difference.

    “Uh, yes? That is literally the purpose of laws.”
    No. The purpose of laws is to prevent actionable and obvious harm, that is a clear discrete violation of rights. And punish transgressions.

    I don’t see what right of mine, as queer person, is being transgress if a florist (or church) refuses my custom. I’m not entitled to enter into any contract with another; I’m only entitled the ability to enter into contracts.

    “with their “religious conscience”, whatever the fuck that means.”

    Don’t play dumb. It means being forced to do something they consider gravely immoral. Let me give you an hypothetical example. Let’s say you owned a health insurance company. Let’s further say that Obamacare (ACA) required you to charge two married men 6 times the premiums as other married couples because men who have sex with men are more likely to get HIV. Would you follow it? What if the law required you to discriminate against black people (ala Jim Crow)? Would you obey?

    I would not as matter of conscience.

  36. says

    @Nerd

    That’s circular. I’m asking why is a business compelled to be open to all but a church isn’t and you respond because a church isn’t open to all but a business is.

    Yes that is how the current law works, but I don’t think the current law is justified.

  37. numerobis says

    Just FYI: Catholic churches generally don’t chant much latin anymore, and haven’t in a long time. That was what caused my *mother* to quit the church (which she didn’t believe in at all, but she liked the traditions; also, hearing the words in French rather than Latin probably helped her realize how insane it all was).

  38. says

    @Marcus

    “Clearly, since if it were so obviously a moral thing to do, wouldn’t everyone be doing it?

    Society exists to sort out the differences where practicality and obviousness are insufficient. Mere survival is not enough; you cannot force every child to learn about heat by experiencing the stove. Civilization is distilled into the state; that is its power.”

    Excuse me? when did I say anything about obviousness? I find discrimination to be obviously wrong, but others disagree. I’m not so confident that I’m willing to compel it. See above. the harm is not actionable.

    Regardless, the state is not about enforcing mere moral dictates. You are an atheist right? is going to church immoral? it’s a waste of time, waste o money and from the social justice perspective enforcing all manners of system of oppression. I’m 95% sure I have seen professor Myers describe the church as wholly bad. I don think a good person would attend any church, certainly not the Catholic church. This is a moral dictate: Do not attend the Catholic Church. Are you willing to use the state to enforce it?

  39. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    . I’m asking why is a business compelled to be open to all but a church isn’t and you respond because a church isn’t open to all but a business is.

    Then you won’t understand the difference between a religion offering up its house and minister, compared to a business selling cakes. That appears to be deliberate stupidity, not any intelligence, on your part.

  40. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Regardless, the state is not about enforcing mere moral dictates.

    Liberturd response. All decisions have a moral component.
    For example, this assholery:

    This is a moral dictate: Do not attend the Catholic Church.

    Who are we to say what other people should believe in their church and home. Now, in commerce, on the other hand. Why don’t you acknowledge you have nothing but your illogical skepticism.

  41. Vivec says

    But despite the religious ceremony having no legal weight, it’s clear that many people do value the religious ceremony for its own sake, or expression of religious faith or as a family obligation.

    Good for them. Some people value tennis for it’s own sake. That doesn’t mean that me and a friend playing tennis is a business.

    I don’t see a principled reason why it can’t be. Are dues (tithes) expected? Your D&D group is providing you goods (i.e. social outlet, friendship, D&D experience) and there are cost involved (the rule books, dice, pen and paper, time etc.).

    Not every church requires tithes. Literally every action has some sort of benefit and some sort of cost. By your definition, just about anything you could possibly do with other people is a business, which redefines “business” into uselessness.

    The purpose of laws is to prevent actionable and obvious harm

    Certainly fits my definition of morality – a set of common values we as humans have developed so as to maintain social cohesiveness and the common good. Preventing actionable and obvious harm and punishing transgression is absolutely “enforcing morality.”

    I don’t see what right of mine, as queer person, is being transgress if a florist (or church) refuses my custom. I’m not entitled to enter into any contract with another; I’m only entitled the ability to enter into contracts.

    Rights aren’t some Platonic “thing” floating out in space that humans are imbued with. Humans don’t have rights by virtue of being humans. Rights are privileges granted by authority – and in this case, your right of equal protection is being transgressed, as enumerated in the constitution.

    Don’t play dumb. It means being forced to do something they consider gravely immoral.

    That religious people base their morality on fantasy novels doesn’t mean I have any problem transgressing their batshit concept of morality. When Andrea Yates drowned her children, she thought she was acting morally according to her wackjob religious beliefs. Is punishing her for that transgressing on her ~religious conscience~?

    What if the law required you to discriminate against black people (ala Jim Crow)? Would you obey?

    In an ideal sense? No. Those laws are immoral – and therefore not doing what laws are intended to do. I’m not arguing in favor of following immoral laws, I’m rejecting the idea that punishing discrimination is immoral.

  42. Vivec says

    This is a moral dictate: Do not attend the Catholic Church. Are you willing to use the state to enforce it?

    By banning the people from attending the church? Nah. I’m totally willing to close down churches and punish both parents and priests that are complicit in the incitement of violence, abuse*, and cover-ups that take place at many individual churches, though.

    *I’m not just referring to child sexual abuse. There are many religious teachings – most of which are not unique to Catholicism – that I would consider child abuse when instructed to them.

  43. Vivec says

    Just FYI: Catholic churches generally don’t chant much latin anymore, and haven’t in a long time.

    Alright, replace “chanting latin” with “babbling bullshit”, the meaning is the same.

  44. says

    Mike Smith@#42:
    when did I say anything about obviousness?

    I don’t have to reply literally to every word you write.

    I find discrimination to be obviously wrong, but others disagree.

    Of course. My use of “obvious” is in the sense of “obvious to everyone” – you know, in the sense of, uh, obvious. Had I meant “obvious only to idiots” I would have said “obvious only to idiots” or “obvious to a select few” if I had been speaking to libertarians”

    Regardless, the state is not about enforcing mere moral dictates.

    I said nothing of the sort. Go own with your arch clever self.

  45. Vivec says

    Uh, no.
    There’s been a lot of blood spilled over that.

    Uh, yes. “Innate human rights” are not a thing.

  46. says

    Vivec@#51 – I didn’t say anything about innate human rights. I just said that rights are not privileges granted by authority. Assuming _that_ gives away too much of the game to authority!!!

  47. Vivec says

    I’m not sure how it could be any other case. Either rights are some platonic idea floating out in space that we’re endowed with, or they’re just a byword for “specific protections we consider inviolable.”

  48. says

    Vivec@#53 I’m not your Socrates. I’m not even trying to define what rights are.

    I’ll observe that it’s a bad strategy to decide that one’s rights are what one’s master defines them to be. That presupposes one has a master granting them those rights.

  49. Vivec says

    Well, seeing as “appealling to adverse consequences” is a fallacy and pointing out that bad can come from a definition doesn’t invalidate said definition – good for you?

  50. Tethys says

    The United States is founded on the principal that people have innate rights. It may be one of the most important sentences ever codified into a legal document.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    I would change men to people, and omit the word creator, but otherwise this sentence is the basis of democracy and the formation of the USA.

  51. Vivec says

    The United States is founded on the principal that people have innate rights.

    Yes, and I disagree with that principal.

    I 100% deny that humans have innate rights by sheer virtue of being humans.

    Regardless of whether or not it “gives too much of the game” to authority, I think that “certain protections as defined by an authority and held to be inviolable” is much closer to a correct definition of a “right” than this weird special attribute we think humans just have out of the blue.

  52. says

    Vivec@#58: “certain protections as defined by an authority and held to be inviolable”

    Held by to be inviolable by whom? Expecting authority to grant rights and never rescind the grant, or never to violate them seems overly trusting in authority.

    You might want to start with Rawls’ Liberty Principle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness
    though don’t confuse Rawls’ “liberties” with “rights”

    I’m not close to convinced “rights” are a thing.* But if they are a thing, I sure won’t accept whatever “rights” authority chooses to toss my way after they’ve taken their slice – because you’ll notice that authority tends to have more “rights” than anyone else because, uh, authority. Rawls tries to argue that liberties are a collective balance and I like that line of thinking a great deal.

  53. Vivec says

    Expecting authority to grant rights and never rescind the grant, or never to violate them seems overly trusting in authority.

    It very well may be. However, I’m making a descriptive claim, not a normative one. I think rights are a certain set of legal protections granted to individuals by some legal body, not that they should be that way, or that such a definition is ideal.

  54. Tethys says

    Humans have agency, regardless of any authority or written sentence. This is self-evident. I do not think human is the qualifying factor.

  55. Vivec says

    so your opinion is that “rights” are not ‘rights’ they’re ‘privileges.’ You’re welcome to your opinion.

    Indeed, I think that “rights”, minus the supernatural baggage, pretty much just end up being particularly important legal protections.

    Humans have agency, regardless of any authority or written sentence.

    Sure, humans have the ability to act as they will – within limits, since you can’t will yourself to fly – but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant to the concept of legal rights.

    I think the closest you could get to some particular universal concept of rights is something like “a certain set of fundamental legal protections that cannot be infringed on without having immensely negative consequences.” However, even those are granted by some legal authority, not some kind of package deal you get when you’re born.

  56. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Mike Smith,

    Is it ok for the state to compel a doctor to treat a patient who is gay, even if that goes against the doctor’s religious conscience?

  57. says

    Vivec@#63 I think that “rights”, minus the supernatural baggage, pretty much just end up being particularly important legal protections … <

    The problem with that view is that such 'rights' can be taken away with a stroke of the legal pen. What authority gives, authority can take.

    Basically this comes down to a form of the Euthyphro dilemma: are there moral laws that superceed the laws that the state establishes, or are the state's laws all there is? If the latter, you're stuck with saying that the state is acting justly if the majority decides to disenfranchise non-christians or gays or whatever. If the former, then what is the source of those principles of justice that even the state must respect? Built into the notion that the state has authority is the question "where does that authority come from?" And – no – it doesn't exactly just come from the governed because then you’re back to the problem of what happens if a majority of the governed decide to oppress a subset? In the US there’s this whole ‘bill of rights’ thing that tries to enumerate some rights that people have which trump the requirements of the state, and which reserves rights not granted to the state to the people. That was a good try. Except it was bullshit all along.

    That’s the heart of political philosophy, right there. I sure can’t help you solve it.. if I did, I’d be one of those rockstars of philosophy transcending Socrates and Rawls and Milo Yiannopoulos.

  58. Vivec says

    Basically this comes down to a form of the Euthyphro dilemma: are there moral laws that superceed the laws that the state establishes, or are the state’s laws all there is?

    I personally hold to the former. Morals are a fluid set of ethical guidelines humans developed to ensure wellbeing and cohesiveness as a group. Laws are a method of codifying and enforcing said guidelines. Rights are laws/legal protections that are so tied up in wellbeing that infringing on them would have really, really bad effects.

    So like, imagine something like that film the Road where all society breaks down and it’s every man for himself. If someone murders another person, I’d consider it immoral and really bad, but not illegal or a violation of their rights, which I don’t think exist independent of a legal authority or society.

  59. Tethys says

    Sure, humans have the ability to act as they will – within limits, since you can’t will yourself to fly – but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant to the concept of legal rights.

    Innate rights cannot be taken away from a person without killing, imprisoning, or otherwise oppressing them. They aren’t identical to legal rights.

    The Declaration of Independence is a legal document, but it doesn’t grant rights. It declares them inalienable, and affirms that all humans are entitled to self-determination, period. Being born American automatically means that you have inalienable rights, and also have access to a legal system if your legal or civil rights are infringed.

  60. Ice Swimmer says

    Just how often do the “anti-PC” people find other people’s skin color, attire, gender presentation or sexual orientation, mother tongue or place of birth to be “not politically correct”? What did “anti-PC” people say about Rachael Ray’s black-and-white scarf? What was the expression “anti-PC” people used instead of “French fries” back in 2003?

  61. Vivec says

    Innate rights cannot be taken away from a person without killing, imprisoning, or otherwise oppressing them.

    Right, but I don’t think innate rights exist, so thinking on what qualities they have is kind of pointless imo.

  62. Menyambal says

    You folks arguing about rights need to recall that the Declaration of Independence said that the truths were self-evident. Which means you can argue from here to Christmas, but the pros said they had nothing.

    As for trigger warnings, I’ve had bad experiences that get recalled at odd times. I appreciate attempts to let me prepare.

  63. says

    This is anecdotal I realize, but I’ve never met someone who complained about Millennials being a bunch of over sensitive babies who wasn’t a thin-skinned kidult doing most of the screaming.

  64. Tethys says

    I realize that we are debating an unanswerable philosophy question as to innate rights. The fact that it’s been written into the document that established the legal basis for a new type of government is hard proof of said innate rights IMO.

    Being alive is the only qualification. Slaves didn’t stop trying to escape slavery because of laws, but because it is a fundamental violation of their innate qualities as a human being. The same is true of all oppression.

  65. Vivec says

    The fact that it’s been written into the document that established the legal basis for a new type of government is hard proof of said innate rights IMO.

    I don’t think being written into a document is proof of anything but that words were written on paper.

    Slaves didn’t stop trying to escape slavery because of laws, but because it is a fundamental violation of their innate qualities as a human being.

    And I’d argue that slaves try to escape slavery because slavery sucks for the slave and they don’t enjoy being slaves. I agree that laws are irrelevant though – furthermore, at that point, the laws were both bad and immoral in that they permitted slavery.

  66. consciousness razor says

    Mike Smith:

    I have mixed feelings about them. I’m not so sure that Gov’t should require private business to hire people of color. I’m not sure if I’m OK with the state forcing a racist person to treat black people equally in the market place. Or more to the point the state forcing a black person to treat whites equally given how the laws are written.

    What do you think you’re uncertain about?

    Let’s suppose you’re actually going to explicitly defend this kind of view: it is not the case that we should create a legal framework which ensures people treat each other fairly. How would a defense like that work?

    Yes. I’m thinking of the couple of cases in which a non state (private firm) employee lost their job because of bigoted Facebook posts. That is sort of medium pressure that I feel goes to far, maybe; there’s no injustice on the private firm’s part but it strikes me as an indecent* thing to do. I would prefer a softer pressure.

    Why shouldn’t a person be fired for that?

    Are you sure you’re not just a raging bigot, one who doesn’t have an effective disguise? How would your comments be different?

    Boycotts, as well, are not unjust but indecent* at times. Like the LGBT+ boycott of Chic-fil-a over the owner’s comments about marriage. That seems too harsh.

    It’s too harsh to not buy their crappy food? Is it unfair of me to buy other food? Is there any reason why I’m obliged to buy their crappy food? Would the world be a better place if I bought their crappy food? Would I feel better about myself, or become better at making appropriate decisions in other situations, if I bought their crappy food? Is it that somehow Chic-fil-A, Inc., would itself be a more miserable non-feeling, non-human entity if I didn’t provide it with my money in exchange for its crappy food?

    Maybe you should try reading some of this shit out loud to yourself, before you click on “post comment.” Or if your bullshit detector just doesn’t work, you may want to check the batteries.

  67. Tethys says

    because slavery sucks for the slave Not necessarily. Some slaves had owners who treated them as very valuble people and gave them every creature comfort, yet the slave still prefers not being a slave and will never be content being owned. Humans in general simply refuse even the most gilded of cages. It is innate, inalienable, very real. and nothing and nobody can change human nature.

  68. consciousness razor says

    So like, imagine something like that film the Road where all society breaks down and it’s every man for himself. If someone murders another person, I’d consider it immoral and really bad, but not illegal or a violation of their rights, which I don’t think exist independent of a legal authority or society.

    This is going deep into the weeds here, but we don’t need to pretend things about humans in a state of nature to answer questions like this. Whatever that would be like, we know humans are social animals, like every other mammal as far as I’m aware, no matter what kind of legal or political systems they’ve devised at various time or places.

    Marcus made a pretty basic point: it wouldn’t be good to have an “authority” (some specific individual or group) or a “law” deciding what a person’s rights are. We have rights, independently of whether a law or an authority decrees it to be so.

    I have a right to say this very sentence. If some “authority” creates a law claiming I don’t have that right, it is wrong. We can also have some existing set of laws and decide that certain rights ought to be codified in it, ones which are not already there within those laws. How would you explain that, if it’s a thing that can happen? Where would you say those things come from? Not from some other “authority,” nor “from the law” which didn’t have it. They are things we’ve done for ourselves. We can explain how it happened, why we did it for ourselves, why it is a justifiable thing to do, or why some addition or subtraction or modification isn’t a justifiable thing to do if that’s the case — and none of that needs to depend on ridiculous things like “it’s the law” or “authority X says so.”

    There is nothing at all “supernatural” about a claim like “I have a right to say this sentence.” Sure, it’s a very complicated sort of fact about some very complicated sorts of entities (myself, you, the rest of the society we both participate in, etc.), which takes a good deal of time to explain in detail; but it’s nevertheless just a normal, natural thing in the world that I have that right to say such things. So, I’m saying you’re presenting a false choice between some kind of supernaturalism or Neoplatonism on the one hand and authoritarianism or legalism on the other (maybe it’s even heading into nihilism, which isn’t surprising since authoritarian crap gives you nothing useful to work with). Indeed, as Marcus Ranum also mentioned, we could look at the other half of the coin: supernaturalism clearly doesn’t rule out authoritarian ideas like divine command theory either. So, a natural theory doesn’t need to work your way, and a supernatural one also doesn’t need to be the opposite. They are just at right angles with one another.

  69. Vivec says

    It is innate, inalienable, very real. and nothing and nobody can change human nature.

    Yes, humans like freedom. I don’t see how that translates to a right that exists independent of any legal system.

    Marcus made a pretty basic point: it wouldn’t be good to have an “authority” (some specific individual or group) or a “law” deciding what a person’s rights are.

    Oh god for the like tenth time now – How “good” this conception of rights is, is completely irrelevant. I’m not making a statement about how things should be I’m making an argument about how I believe things actually are. Stop acting like I’m claiming some normative preference here, because at the moment, it’s nothing but an appeal to adverse consequences fallacy.

    We have rights, independently of whether a law or an authority decrees it to be so.

    I deny that.

    I have a right to say this very sentence. If some “authority” creates a law claiming I don’t have that right, it is wrong.

    I deny that as well. You have the ability to say that sentence, and the right to free speech as enumerated by our constitution. If some future constitution criminalized free speech, it’d be making an immoral action, but by definition not infringing on any right to free speech – which you no longer have.

    We can also have some existing set of laws and decide that certain rights ought to be codified in it, ones which are not already there within those laws. How would you explain that, if it’s a thing that can happen?

    Pretty easily. As I already said, rights are just certain laws and protections that are particularly important to our wellbeing and social cohesiveness. I reject any sort of “universal human rights” you have by virtue of being a human, independent of any legal system.

    It’s possible to have a legal code, notice that it is not protecting important things, and then decide to change it to codify those things into law. I’d argue that is exactly what the writers of the constitution did with the bill of rights. None of that involves this weird concept of inherent rights.

    There is nothing at all “supernatural” about a claim like “I have a right to say this sentence.”

    I agree. However, I also believe that right stops existing the second there stops being a law or legal protection that allows you to say that sentence. If some hypothetical legal system makes it illegal for you to say that sentence, it’s violating no right of yours.

    I don’t understand how you can posit some kind of transcendent system of natural rights and not appeal to some sort of right-giver. Humans are literally nothing more than evolved apes, and “rights” are nothing more than particularly important/useful laws. We don’t have any right to talk, express ourselves, eat, breathe, or even live, any more than a bacteria or a clam does – beyond the ones we create and enforce as a community.

  70. Vivec says

    The whole “this might not be a good system” argument assumes I think this system is good.

    I don’t.

    Some kind of system where there actually is a transcendent “thing” you can point to and say “this is a right I have and you can’t ever take it away” is preferable. A system where people just didn’t do immoral things to each other would be even more preferable.

    However, I’m not comparing multiple systems and saying I think this one is the morally best, or the most successful, or the one with the best consequences. I’m saying that I see plenty of evidence for purely legal rights, and no reason to suppose that extra-legal natural human rights exist. Pointing at that and saying it has bad consequences does not actually do anything to address or refute it.

  71. microraptor says

    Gotta say, claiming that something is a universal right is like making claims of absolute good or evil.

  72. consciousness razor says

    Oh god for the like tenth time now – How “good” this conception of rights is, is completely irrelevant. I’m not making a statement about how things should be I’m making an argument about how I believe things actually are. Stop acting like I’m claiming some normative preference here, because at the moment, it’s nothing but an appeal to adverse consequences fallacy.

    I’m appealing to what’s good, or what consequences something has, because it seems that’s what the subject is. I’m not acting like anything here.

    What could you mean by a statement like “it’s just the way things are, that I don’t have this right which I ought to have, since a legal system doesn’t recognize it”? You’d presumably mean it’s not something an authority or a legal can actually provide or validate or constitute, in any morally relevant sense, if it’s a distinction that makes any sense to you. Which is exactly what Marcus and I argued. So we agree, meaning you don’t have a real argument against it. Or you’d be saying something which is utterly trivial and not the point of a discussion like this. Or it’s something I just can’t make any sense of. I think those are probably the only options.

    We have rights, independently of whether a law or an authority decrees it to be so.

    I deny that.

    Why? Or if not why, then why should anyone care?

    I deny that as well. You have the ability to say that sentence, and the right to free speech as enumerated by our constitution. If some future constitution criminalized free speech, it’d be making an immoral action, but by definition not infringing on any right to free speech – which you no longer have.

    There’s something definitionally wrong about saying I have a right that my particular government, at that particular moment, doesn’t recognize? What’s supposed to be the problem? Am I not allowed to discuss which rights I have, independently of what the government says about them? What word should I have to use instead, when talking about rights that my government doesn’t currently and officially recognize with some pieces of paper that it calls “laws”? Why should I have to use that other word, whatever the fuck it would be and whatever the fuck this little game is supposed to accomplish?

    As I already said, rights are just certain laws and protections that are particularly important to our wellbeing and social cohesiveness.

    But you just claimed otherwise. You said it could be the case “by definition” (!) that I no longer have a protection which is particularly important to my wellbeing and the social cohesiveness of the group I’m in, because a certain law was no longer in place. I don’t have a right, even though it does meet your criteria of being a protection that’s particularly important to my wellbeing and so forth. So whatever the law actually is or does, definitionally, according to you, it isn’t that.

    I don’t understand how you can posit some kind of transcendent system of natural rights and not appeal to some sort of right-giver. Humans are literally nothing more than evolved apes, and “rights” are nothing more than particularly important/useful laws. We don’t have any right to talk, express ourselves, eat, breathe, or even live, any more than a bacteria or a clam does – beyond the ones we create and enforce as a community.

    I haven’t said a thing about any transcendent systems or natural rights. We give ourselves rights. That’s what I said. If you want to call all of us “the right-givers,” have a blast. This doesn’t have anything to do with the claims you’re making. It’s still us, and what makes us who and what we are, which has priority over the legal/political systems that we create. Putting those ahead of us and what is right (!) for us is unnecessary, certainly not a more helpful or more accurate portrayal of the world we live in. And isn’t the logical follow-up of rejecting whatever “supernatural” or “transcendent” bullshit you think you’re opposing right now in this conversation, because like I said that isn’t the alternative.

  73. L. Minnik says

    I’d phrase it as “inalienable rights” are laws that try to codify some of the basic needs of human beings, as opposed to say import taxes, which describe a specific strategy applied by a specific group of people.

  74. Tethys says

    Humans are literally nothing more than evolved apes, and “rights” are nothing more than particularly important/useful laws.

    Do you imagine that social rules of fairness and justice do not exist among chimpanzees? All social animals have rules about killing, mating, who is entitled to what, and who can fight. Humans just write ours down and give them names.

    Laws are the system we have developed to deal with infringement of rights, but they in themselves only define how and when a person can be punished for not abiding by the rules. Human rights are not some transcendent, nebulous thing.

  75. Saad says

    Mike Smith, #24

    Are you willing to compel a Catholic priest to perform a same sex marriage? yes or no?

    I say no. I’m not sure why that is different from, say, compelling Hobby Lobby to treat two male employee as married vis-a-vis benefits.

    And from, say, compelling them to treat a white employee and a black employee equally.

    Right on, dude. These oppressed minorities have had it too easy for too long. If they don’t like being discriminated by their employee, they can go form their own arts and crafts store! Problem solved.

    You’re an asshole.

  76. Saad says

    Mike Smith, #40

    I’m asking why is a business compelled to be open to all but a church isn’t and you respond because a church isn’t open to all but a business is.

    You’re a white man, aren’t you?

    Stop being dishonest and acknowledge the fact that there is a difference between a mosque and Arby’s. Look at their demographic. You don’t see the difference? Look at the services they provide and whether the nature of the service is very clearly geared towards a demographic from the start.

    Walking into a mosque, you know what you’re going in for. You know the rules of the club you’re entering. Walking into an Arby’s, you know you’re going for a sandwich to satisfy your taste buds and your hunger, a universal human need which isn’t specific to a certain club/sect/demographic. Arby’s doesn’t operate in way that makes it clear to the public that it’s for whites only or straight people only. A mosque is very clearly a Muslim institution. It’s also not a place for services for the general public like a restaurant is.

  77. unclefrogy says

    these rights like the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that you seem to saying come from some granting authority . Who or what gave this authority the power to make such grants? Are they something different. As you said above just because you have the ability to do a think does not imply a moral right to do it.
    At the root of these rights is an understanding of the basic equality of all humans, all come into life through the same way and all leave the same. There are differences of class, sex, abilities and appearance. It makes no difference. The Declaration of Rights does not grant the rights they exist the same for all by virtue of being born a human being what it does do and why it is important is that it is in fact a restriction on government on what government is obliged to do. When King John signed the Magna Carta on the fields of Runnymede He was not granting anything to anyone he was recognizing the demands given to him as fact.
    That some members of some societies set themselves up as the authorities and reserve for themselves more power and privileged and keep some others in peonage as you said just because you can does not make it “moral ” or right to do it
    uncle frogy

  78. Matt Cramp says

    You know, I’m really not convinced by the “marketplace of ideas”. I mean, it posits that ideas compete against one another on the basis of their merits, which is clearly not true. People don’t rationally weigh up ideas unless they’re applying specific training; more likely, they drift towards something they’re already emotionally pre-disposed to believe, which they rationalise as being what “people like them” believe. Which is fine, really; we’re thinking meat, which is amazing enough, and we’ve got strategies for when it’s actually important that we discard ideas based on the evidence. But that’s a pretty faulty premise to be basing a society on.

  79. Vivec says

    What could you mean by a statement like “it’s just the way things are, that I don’t have this right which I ought to have, since a legal system doesn’t recognize it”?

    What it says. Rights are nothing more than particularly important laws. If you are currently not granted that right by any legal authority, it doesn’t exist. I see no evidence of any sort of ephemeral “right” that exists independent of a legal authority.

    Why? Or if not why, then why should anyone care?

    Because I see no evidence for it. I suppose I should say that I’m unconvinced that there is such a thing.

    There’s something definitionally wrong about saying I have a right that my particular government, at that particular moment, doesn’t recognize?

    Because, under the definition of rights I believe in, it is not possible to have a right that is not explicitly granted by a legal authority. If a hypothetical government criminalized literally everything, I’d argue that you currently have no rights.

    But you just claimed otherwise. You said it could be the case “by definition” (!) that I no longer have a protection which is particularly important to my wellbeing and the social cohesiveness of the group I’m in, because a certain law was no longer in place.

    Yes, if the government does not grant you a right, it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean that they can’t give you that right later. Remember, my definition of right is literally just “a particularly important law.”

    It’s still us, and what makes us who and what we are, which has priority over the legal/political systems that we create.

    You’re attaching a lot of unnecessary baggage to the word “right”. I don’t think it has anything to do with “who we are” or whatever magic “human spirit” crap, it’s just a fancy word for “laws that are really good”. With that as the case, you can’t have “laws that are really good” without some legal authority codifying them. Hence, if said “law that is really good” isn’t granted by any legal authority, it doesn’t exist.

    Laws are the system we have developed to deal with infringement of rights, but they in themselves only define how and when a person can be punished for not abiding by the rules. Human rights are not some transcendent, nebulous thing.

    I generally agree with this, with the exception that I think laws are there to enforce morality – ie promote wellbeing and cohesiveness as a society. Rights are just particularly nice, fundamental laws and legal protections.

    I literally don’t get how this is so hard or objectionable. The concept of a “legal right” is wholly distinct from a “natural right”. This is a well established dichotomy, not something I made up on the spot.

    The former is defined as “those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws)”

    Whereas natural rights are “those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).”

    I believe the former has plenty of evidence, and see no evidence for the latter. That is the entirety of my argument.

  80. Vivec says

    Here, I’ll state things as succinctly as I can, because it feels like we’re just arguing past each other.

    Rights can either be legal (ie man made and codified in law) or natural (ie not man made and just ephemeral). I see no evidence for the latter, so I reject that. For a legal right to exist, it has to be codified in law, by definition. As such, if you are not granted a particular legal right, it doesn’t exist.

    So, in my hypothetical scenario where the government does not give you the right to free speech, they are not infringing on any legal right to free speech. You, by definition, do not have a right to freedom of speech in this scenario. It is immoral for the government to deny you that right, but it is not violating some ephemeral “natural right” to free speech.

  81. qwints says

    Saad @84, the rule for whether a place can discriminate can’t be whether that place “operates in a way that makes it clear to the public” that it discriminates. I’m confused by the number of people here defending religious institutions’ right to discriminate. What do you think about the recent US Supreme Court case allowing a religious school to discriminate on the basis of disability? (9-0 that a teacher couldn’t sue the school for firing her because of her narcolepsy)

    Similarly, what’s the difference between a non-profit country club that is open to the general public and a place of worship like a mosque or church? Assuming both advertise, allow non-members to visit and allow anyone to apply, why should one be allowed to discriminate based on race or sex and the other barred from doing so?

  82. qwints says

    In case it’s not clear, I agree with Mike Smith that there’s no principled difference between religious and secular spaces, but I support prohibiting protected class discrimination without a bona fied qualification (mosques should be able to only allow Muslims but should not be able to bar disabled people). I would generally allow individuals to legally refuse to do personal service for any reason with only employment or social consequences. If you don’t want to perform or plan a wedding, you shouldn’t be forced to. (This gets really complicated in edge cases, and it’s probably not a workable rule in practice, but it generally reflects how I feel about laws)

  83. Saad says

    qwints, #89

    Saad @84, the rule for whether a place can discriminate can’t be whether that place “operates in a way that makes it clear to the public” that it discriminates. I’m confused by the number of people here defending religious institutions’ right to discriminate. What do you think about the recent US Supreme Court case allowing a religious school to discriminate on the basis of disability? (9-0 that a teacher couldn’t sue the school for firing her because of her narcolepsy)

    I didn’t mean to imply that I think it’s okay for religious institutions to discriminate.

    I also agree with you that churches shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on disability. But Mike’s comparison of churches with businesses like restaurants is flawed. A mosque can refuse entry to an atheist because a mosque is like a religious club for Muslims. Who would McDonald’s refuse entry to using this line of reasoning?

    Similarly, what’s the difference between a non-profit country club that is open to the general public and a place of worship like a mosque or church? Assuming both advertise, allow non-members to visit and allow anyone to apply, why should one be allowed to discriminate based on race or sex and the other barred from doing so?

    Agreed. I don’t think churches should be discriminating based on race or sex. And mosques shouldn’t be prohibiting women from using the main entrance.

  84. qwints says

    I didn’t mean to imply that I think it’s okay for religious institutions to discriminate.

    You didn’t, I obviously misread your comment.

  85. consciousness razor says

    I don’t think it has anything to do with “who we are” or whatever magic “human spirit” crap, it’s just a fancy word for “laws that are really good”. With that as the case, you can’t have “laws that are really good” without some legal authority codifying them.

    But you’re saying it has nothing to do with whether it’s good or really good. You only talk about an authority who does or doesn’t codify them. You’ve been turning that particular switch on and off, as if that were helpful, but that switch isn’t making anything “really good.” So you have to do something else to defend the claim that they’re “laws that are really good.”

    In what sense is “codification” what you’re looking for anyway? If it’s written down on a piece of paper, is that what makes me have a legal right? Or does the government need to do anything in specific cases to enforce a thing written on a piece of paper? Is the word “codification” supposed to be painting a picture of actions which are taken daily by numerous government employees? If the government drops the ball one day, so that a single person’s legal right isn’t enforced effectively, does that right literally cease to exist? Does it not exist for that person while it does for others within the same political system? Or does it exist the whole time for everybody, by virtue of remaining intact on the piece of paper, despite the fact that it isn’t doing anything useful?

    If you are talking about that sort of thing, why does anybody else care about that sort of thing? Why shouldn’t we care about the thing you’ve been describing as impossible or false, because you don’t seem to get what it’s doing?

    Rights can either be legal (ie man made and codified in law) or natural (ie not man made and just ephemeral).

    If it’s a thing that’s codified into law, but then at some other time it isn’t because a specific authority says so, that is an instance of something which is ephemeral. Did you have a different word in mind? It’s pretty odd that you’d describe my position that way, instead of yours, because mine doesn’t depend on ephemeral things like a particular individual saying so or not saying so, changing their mind, acting on whatever whims they happen to have at the time no matter how it affects anybody else, whether or not they have the consent of the governed … things that “the authority” can do.

    I’m also not claiming it’s “not man made.” Donald Trump is a man. The opposite of Trump being given authority to make a legal right is not “no humans do it.” That specific person who’s being described as an authority isn’t all of humanity. So it certainly doesn’t imply nobody does it, if he or someone like him isn’t given authority which extends to things like the very existence of a right that I have as a human being.

  86. abb3w says

    @87, Vivec:

    I see no evidence of any sort of ephemeral “right” that exists independent of a legal authority.

    You have the right to the conservation of charge. You have the right to mass-energy conservation within limits of Heisenberg time uncertainty. You have a right to the nondecrease of net entropy within the limits of Poincaré recurrence….

  87. Vivec says

    So you have to do something else to defend the claim that they’re “laws that are really good.”

    As I’ve said repeatedly, good laws are ones that fulfill the purpose of promoting wellbeing and social cohesiveness. A right is just a particularly fundamental and important law – ie one that can’t be infringed upon without seriously infringing on wellbeing and social cohesiveness.

    In what sense is “codification” what you’re looking for anyway?

    In the “written down and actively enforced by a legal authority” sense. If the government has a codified right to, say, free speech, and then tries to silence someone, they’d be violating that right. If the government gets rid of any legal protection of free speech, you no longer have a right to free speech to infringe.

    Like I keep saying, a “legal right” is just a particular subset of laws that are particularly important and beneficial to have.

    Just like laws, they stop existing when they’re no longer codified and enforced. Otherwise, you’d be in the position of arguing that alcohol and sodomy are still illegal in the US, despite neither law being enforced.

    Did you have a different word in mind?

    Indeed, I must have been thinking of a different word.

    I’m also not claiming it’s “not man made.” Donald Trump is a man. The opposite of Trump being given authority to make a legal right is not “no humans do it.” That specific person who’s being described as an authority isn’t all of humanity. So it certainly doesn’t imply nobody does it, if he or someone like him isn’t given authority which extends to things like the very existence of a right that I have as a human being.

    1. For the last fucking time. The bad consequences of this definition of “legal rights” is irrelevant. I’m going to stop responding to any further arguments in this vein. If you can’t get why appealing to consequences in a descriptive argument is fallacious, that’s you’re problem.

    2. Most of that is a non-sequitur that I’m having a hard time parsing. So, let me make things easier.

    Legal rights are defined as a particularly important subset of laws that exist by virtue of being codified and enforced. Natural rights are defined as laws that persist independent of any legal system and are not created by humans. Demonstrate the latter type exists, because I do not see enough evidence to justify believing in them.

  88. consciousness razor says

    1. For the last fucking time. The bad consequences of this definition of “legal rights” is irrelevant. I’m going to stop responding to any further arguments in this vein. If you can’t get why appealing to consequences in a descriptive argument is fallacious, that’s you’re problem.

    We’re describing features of a political system. We can make whatever system we want, and the reason we bothered to make them (and why we make them certain ways rather than other ways) is because of the consequences that they have for us. They’re not given to us by a god, and they don’t fall down from Platonic heaven. We make them. If your theory about such systems doesn’t do the job, we should come up with a better one. I’ve been describing what makes yours inadequate, which is definitely not irrelevant or otherwise fallacious.

    Natural rights are defined as laws that persist independent of any legal system and are not created by humans. Demonstrate the latter type exists, because I do not see enough evidence to justify believing in them.

    I’m not claiming they’re not created by humans. So, sorry, I’m not going to provide evidence for an argument I haven’t been making.

    One human, like Donald Trump or Adolf Hitler, is “the authority” who does this special trick that you think legal rights do. Or else there’s a small inner party that does it, instead of just one.

    But it could very well be that a legitimate government is one that acts by the consent of the governed, that we all tell our employees in the government which rights we do or don’t have and how those should be enforced. Whatever the government happens to do at that point, it’s still us determining that, not some other person who is an “authority” at determining that, who’s supposed to have some method of determining that on our behalf but without regard to what we actually want. Are you claiming a system like that is impossible by definition? That it could be, but that it happens not to be? What’s the problem? What sort of evidence are you looking for, that would bring you closer to agreeing that this is a better way to think about political systems and doesn’t introduce any problems when trying to describe them? I mean, I haven’t run into any problems so far in this thread, so that’s some evidence for you — what more do you need?

  89. Vivec says

    I’m not claiming they’re not created by humans. So, sorry, I’m not going to provide evidence for an argument I haven’t been making.

    Good for you.

    I’m specifically arguing that “natural rights” as I defined them above don’t exist.

    If your argument won’t address that, it’s irrelevant. Address my actual topic or bother someone else.

  90. Vivec says

    I’ll repeat my original argument again to make things clear.

    Legal rights are defined as a subset of laws that protect particularly sensitive or important freedoms as defined and enforced by a legal authority. Natural rights are non-man made rights that exist independent of any legal authority. I see no justification for belief in the latter.

  91. Tethys says

    Natural rights are defined as laws that persist independent of any legal system and are not created by humans. Demonstrate the latter type exists, because I do not see enough evidence to justify believing in them.

    I think it is a failure of language. Laws can be written by humans, or they can be natural forces. We speak of rights, but there is no easy language shortcut to differentiate the natural laws of social animals from the body of written documents that makes up the Law.

    Dogs have rules of proper behavior. So do rats,rattlesnakes, apes, and bees. Humans are the only animal that can behave in detrimental manner to it’s society and not be subject to immediate consequences, or being ejected from the social group. This usually results in death, so most animals including humans tend to follow the behavioral rules. This is natural law.

    Natural law causes humans and many other wild animals to value freedom, self-expression, equality, and self-determination, even at cost of death. Empathy and love are just as real as magnetism and gravity. They are just very difficult things to convey with mere language.

  92. kayden says

    @Mike Smith at 20.

    You are the very reason why Blacks had to march and fight like hell for their civil rights in the 1950s/60s (if not earlier). Businesses (whether public or private) have to serve the public if they are open to the public. They do not get to pick and choose which classes of people they want to discriminate against.

    You being okay with anti-Black discrimination is not cute in any way or form. I echo Saad’s sentiments that you are a tool.

    It’s easy to be okay with discrimination when that discrimination is not targeted at you. (Looking at all of you Libertarians, especially Rand Paul). Fascinating that there are so many Americans who are fine with discrimination in a country where Whites are becoming the minority. Be careful what you wish for. The shoe may be on the other foot with you being the target instead of the oppressor.

  93. Vivec says

    Animal instincts are not a law in any legal or scientific sense. That only makes sense in the “~human spirit~” magical thinking nonsense way.

  94. unclefrogy says

    why should anyone take your definition of rights to be the final word instead of any other’s definition? That seems a little arbitrary to me and is clearly set up to make it impossible to disagree.
    Are you trying to get everyone to agree that “rights” are not these disembodied entities floating in the either some where? You are just being obtuse and legalistic.
    Of course the rights come from people, as has been said above they come from the consent of the governed they do not come from the authorities who do the governing and unfortunately human beings being what they are the rights in question have had to be enforced by the occasional use of violence and the threat of violence to get the governing bodies to accept them.
    simply put no one has any more right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness than anyone else. You or any one else can do anything they want there is not great authority waiting to punish or cherish you when you die. You or anyone can do what they can get away with but never forget that what goes around comes around .
    uncle frogy

  95. consciousness razor says

    If your argument won’t address that, it’s irrelevant. Address my actual topic or bother someone else.

    Your topic, or the way you’ve chosen to talk about it, has a large number of problems. That’s what I’ve been discussing. The fact that I’m not the easy strawman you’d rather beat up, because I’m talking about some of the problems with your stated views, isn’t something I can fix. It would be bothering me if views like yours were accepted uncritically, and I don’t especially care if you’re bothered by facing some fairly mild criticism. I like you, Vivec, and I think we have a lot in common… but liking and respecting you is what made me think we might get somewhere in a productive dialogue, not what prevents me from bothering you. Besides, if nobody here is arguing in favor of the weird obscure claim that you have a problem with (the existence of “natural rights” as you’ve defined them), then who are you having a conversation with? Why not have a more interesting conversation, with actual people who are willing to have it?

  96. Vivec says

    why should anyone take your definition of rights to be the final word instead of any other’s definition? That seems a little arbitrary to me and is clearly set up to make it impossible to disagree.

    Common usage. The legal vs natural right dichotomy I use is a well established philosophical dillemma.

    Clearly it’s not impossible to disagree, seeing as there are a large amount of people that believe in either a lawgiving skydaddy or some weird platonic version of rights that apply regardless.

    Of course the rights come from people, as has been said above they come from the consent of the governed they do not come from the authorities who do the governing and unfortunately human beings being what they are the rights in question have had to be enforced by the occasional use of violence and the threat of violence to get the governing bodies to accept them.

    I don’t disagree? When I say legal authority, that includes the governed, since they’re what gives that authority any power in the first place.

    simply put no one has any more right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness than anyone else.

    Depending on what definition of “right” you’re using, I probably agree.

  97. Vivec says

    Besides, if nobody here is arguing in favor of the weird obscure claim that you have a problem with (the existence of “natural rights” as you’ve defined them), then who are you having a conversation with?

    Marcus disagreed with something I posted earlier when arguing with the liberturd where I said universal human rights don’t exist. By that, I meant that I don’t believe that rights can exist independent of a legal system to codify and enforce them. So perhaps they misunderstood me.

    Also, I hardly think this dichotomy of natural and legal rights is weird or unorthodox. Its a pretty old dilemma that thinkers like Locke and Hume wrote about extensively.

  98. Tethys says

    Animal instincts are not a law in any legal or scientific sense. That only makes sense in the “~human spirit~” magical thinking nonsense way.

    Pish-posh. Humans have all sorts of instinctual behavior, just like every other animal on the planet. We aren’t special. The rules about not killing others randomly or taking their stuff or messing with their mates/babies are pretty standard across species. Social cohesion and animal behavior are the basic forces behind human justice and laws and rights.

    I have yet to find an animal that is content to live in a cage. Many of them become so sad they die in captivity. Worms and ants and hamsters and fish all had the habit of constantly attempting to escape, no matter how perfectly their needs were being met. Why? Because a natural force impels them to do so, just as surely as objects fall because they are subject to the natural laws of gravity.

    You cannot simply claim that there is no such thing as natural laws/rules of behavior, without explaining why even domesticated animals aren’t happy to be kept and assert their right to escape.

  99. unclefrogy says

    Depending on what definition of “right” you’re using, I probably agree

    where do the rights you probably agree with come from and where do they exist?

    uncle frogy

  100. Vivec says

    You cannot simply claim that there is no such thing as natural laws/rules of behavior, without explaining why even domesticated animals aren’t happy to be kept and assert their right to escape.

    I think that’s an equivocation of the term “law”. I’m referring to legal systems, not behavior. Clams have laws of behavior but I don’t think you can claim clams have legal systems.

  101. consciousness razor says

    Of course the rights come from people, as has been said above they come from the consent of the governed they do not come from the authorities who do the governing and unfortunately human beings being what they are the rights in question have had to be enforced by the occasional use of violence and the threat of violence to get the governing bodies to accept them.

    I don’t disagree? When I say legal authority, that includes the governed, since they’re what gives that authority any power in the first place.

    First question: Do you disagree? Second: do you really mean to use the word “power”?

    The people who are governed provide moral legitimacy to a governmental body (a legal/political “authority”). They’re the ones who are actually determining whether they have a right. Still with me? Not the power an authority is given, nor the fact that a law is written down and used, but whether it is something that should be. We decide, in the first place, whether this authority should do that. That’s what rights are literally about — the way things should be — if you’re going to be discussing them at all. I’m basically saying that’s “bottom-up” and not “top-down.” What’s the problem?

    Of course, things may or may not happen the way they should, depending on what an authority does with its position (or really what anybody does). Maybe it loses its position as a result of the mistakes it has made, because it’s possible for it to make a mistake about what our rights are, since it isn’t impossible for it to be incorrect… but who knows what may happen in all sorts of situations? We, as human beings, are the ones who determine what is or is not a legitimate political system (including what is legitimately a “right”) which we’ve made for our own benefit. There’s nothing spooky going on here, as far as I can tell. If you’re going to claim there is, it’s got to be about something else…

    If an authority has the power to determine that, no matter what the governed want, then we don’t have that power. It doesn’t include us, unless you’ve started out with us. And if that’s the case, you haven’t actually started with an authority or its power. That’s not fundamentally what makes the thing what it is. So I still don’t see how you can have it both ways.

    Suppose I wanted to say something like this: “I have a right to speak, but the government just took it away.” (Or it isn’t protecting my rights effectively, isn’t doing enough to meet its responsibilities, etc. — lots of statements along those lines will suffice). What you’ve said is that this kind of statement cannot possibly be true, because by definition the only thing that I could possibly be talking about is exactly what the government in fact did. Whatever the law is, I can only be describing what the law actually is (and how the government actually enforces it) when I talk about my rights. If it happens to be the case that the law isn’t that way, or if it happens to be the case that somebody at some time fails to do their job correctly or appropriately, then suddenly and magically, something about my moral status as a human being has fundamentally changed. Because of that irrelevant thing happening over there, or because some arbitrary authority says so, which has no legitimate claim to determining what my rights actually are. Those sorts of things don’t meaningfully depend on silly crap like that. And if none of that is the case, then I must be secretly believing in spirits or some sort of supernatural nonsense, since I’m merely rejecting the notion that it depends on an authority — those are the only two choices we’re given in this false dichotomy. You’re not going to have any good reason to make bizarre claims like that.

    I can talk about what my rights ought to be, where the government has gone wrong in failing to protect them, etc. It’s not an abuse of language to say those are my rights, even when somebody somewhere disagrees or when they haven’t done enough (or didn’t do the correct things) to protect them.

    And besides the way language is being used (or misused) here, nothing about any of this is supernatural, transcendental, paradoxical. There’s no dilemma. You’ve been implying in all sorts of ways that something is somehow difficult or incorrect or impossible or at least confusing about this. But all you have to do is understand trivial statements like “the government isn’t protecting my rights,” which probably nobody has any trouble understanding. Why doesn’t a statement like that make sense? Why is it supposed to imply magic exists? Or have you changed your mind about that a little bit?

  102. Tethys says

    I’m referring to legal systems, not behavior. Clams have laws of behavior but I don’t think you can claim clams have legal systems.

    Legal systems are a form of highly evolved human social behavior that clams find completely unnecessary. Clams also exhibit the impelled to escape behavior, though their lack of appendages means that they only succeed in digging up all the media, uprooting the plants, and fouling the water.

    You agree that rights are not granted by a higher authority,or writing them down, but it doesn’t follow that human rights therefore don’t exist outside of a legal justice system or higher authority. Human laws and courts could disappear tomorrow, but odds are certain that humans would still assert their agency and freedom and rights.

    Why do the clams and humans always try to escape unnatural limitations? Why is the punishment for breaking the rules imprisonment and being formally deprived of your rights? Your rights as expressed by the law code can change due to behavior. Writing them down is the best strategy that humans have devised to create equal justice for all.

    ‘What is the source of justice?’ may be unanswerable, but it is easy to demonstrate that the concept of fair play and rules is intrinsic to being an animal.

  103. smrnda says

    I never get the whole ‘coddled college students.’ Most people making that claim either aren’t that educated, or don’t strike me as being the type who were very serious about getting an education beyond some piece of paper that would get them some class privilege, or else an education that was seen as having no value beyond its vocational training. Usually strikes me as frat boy types lamenting the fact that a party where they show up in blackface is now considered bad taste; folks like that are obviously intellectual heavyweights who can say a thing or two about who is ‘coddled’ in education /snark

    Worse, I don’t get the ‘what will happen when they get to the real world?’ which I assume to be the world of employment. Last I checked, most employers don’t consider workplaces to be forums for your opinions, religious or political beliefs, and value not offending people or creating a hostile work environment. So the type of uncensored free expression which these anti-PC types lament is gone from colleges is even less welcomed in the world of work.

    And then, if the argument is ‘we all got by fine without this’ – it’s another case of who is this WE? I’m sure that back when nobody asked whether certain narratives were racist were wonderful for the minority students. Was it better when someone read Merchant of Venice just for its ‘great literature’ without a discussion (or warning) about anti-semitism?

    With safe spaces, if the idea is that students (like GLTBQ students) are just avoiding ‘the other side’ that’s so laughable that it deserves no consideration. Groups looking for safe spaces get the ‘other side’ shoved down their throats already, but yet the cit/het/white/Christian whatever contingent feels oppressed because there’s a meeting place where nobody wants to hear what they have to say.

    “Like the LGBT+ boycott of Chic-fil-a over the owner’s comments about marriage. That seems too harsh.”

    I’d prefer not to give money to someone who will use that money to fight against my equality in society.

  104. Meg Thornton says

    Mike Smith: @13I think the problem ultimately is people ought to be free to say, nay, even do bigoted things along a certain range of cases.

    I don’t argue people should be prohibited from doing or saying bigoted things. I just strongly oppose the notion “the right to be a bigot” (to quote our Australian federal Attorney-General) is a right which should be fought for or protected. If you say bigoted stuff, you should be willing to stand by your words and take whatever lumps are coming to you. Unfortunately, most bigots tend to want to have their cake (by being able to practice their bigotry without hindrance) and eat it too (without having to deal with any of the negative consequences of their actions).

    @20 Boycotts, as well, are not unjust but indecent* at times. Like the LGBT+ boycott of Chic-fil-a over the owner’s comments about marriage. That seems too harsh.

    This is the sort of thing I’m getting at – the owner of Chic-fil-a is perfectly welcome to say whatever they like about whoever they like. However, they need to be aware as the owner of a business that whatever they say may have a positive or negative effect on their customer base’s opinions of them. They chose to say something which wasn’t particularly polite about LGBT+ people – the LGBT+ people decided not to spend their money at Chic-fil-a. Of the two, I’d argue the LGBT+ people were being the more polite, since they’re complying with the owner of the company’s clearly expressed wish to have nothing to do with them. If other people choose not to do business with them either, well, it’s their choice in a free market economy, right?

    So what, precisely, is the bit of the whole thing which makes you feel the LGBT+ boycott was outside the bounds of decent behaviour? (For bonus points: explain why the original comment by the owner of Chic-fil-a apparently wasn’t outside the bounds of decent behaviour.)

    @24 Are you willing to compel a Catholic priest to perform a same sex marriage? yes or no?

    Are you aware of any genuine cases where people who were not heterosexual have actually attempted to get married within the Catholic Church, yes or no? I’m asking because I haven’t heard of any myself, and I’m never sure whether this sort of thing isn’t just an idea dreamed up out of someone’s head. Names, dates, locations and outcomes for preference.

    I suspect the vast majority of people who are not heterosexual are quite willing to let the various Churches go their own way on this one – and if they’re madly keen on a church wedding, they’re more likely to seek out a more liberal or less hide-bound member of the clergy to perform it. Or they’ll find a friend in the Universal Life Church, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or similar.

    @20 I’m thinking of the couple of cases in which a non state (private firm) employee lost their job because of bigoted Facebook posts.

    Y’know, there’s a point where I stop having sympathy for people, and it comes around about the point where they’re in breach of the Being Bloody Stupid Act[1]. Basically, if someone does something Bloody Stupid, such as, for example, making rude comments to someone else using an account which links back to their personal details, such as their employment status (as happened here in Australia, where a durn fool responded to feminist blogger Clementine Ford with a bunch of misogynist bullshit) then if someone reports your bloody stupidity to your employer (as Ms Ford did) and you get sacked as a result (as the durn fool did), you’re just getting the consequences of your actions.

    The parallel is someone wearing a shirt which clearly identifies their workplace yelling a whole heap of bigoted rubbish in the middle of a train carriage on the way home. Or yelling rude remarks at people in the bar after a few coldies at the end of the day. Or cussing out someone in a shopping centre or other such privately owned public space. It wouldn’t be socially acceptable for them to do such a thing in person (and depending on who was listening, it’d probably result in a quick belt up the side of the head at least, if not an all-out brawl) – why is it acceptable to do it electronically? (Explanation should not depend on US law or US constitutional matter, because the internet does not stop at the US border).

    The same applies to those shining wits who decide to send rude comments to feminist bloggers from their work email accounts, or (to use another Australian example) professors of English who decide to send emails full of bigoted content to their friends using their university-provided email accounts, and wonder why they get disciplined for it.

    Some people you just can’t help short of applying the clue-by-four to the skull. Repeatedly.

    [1] Ankh-Morpork Legal Code.
    * – Not my footnote.

  105. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    If authority stated that you did not have the right to argue for your rights, would you acquiesce or be compelled to argue for such a right? If you felt compelled, what argument could you use that such a right is not deniable by authority? If you acquiesce, then do you also feel that ‘might makes right’ is a valid social system? What right (heh) do you have to complain?