There are logical rights. As soulbound biological instances with limited competence that transforms in value over a lifetime (helpless infant, loved child, breeding peak, midlife glorious pomp), game theory requires that we treat others with consideration lest we end up abused ourselves. Symmetry in human relations is necessary to sustain this, and Britain, 2023, is fractured by unsustainable asymmetries that impinge on our natural, logical rights, hence the palpable tension.
Do Human rights exist?
- Thread starter Benny Bunter
- Start date
shakahislop
Well-known member
we are in the midst in the anglosphere of another spasm of redefining morality. particularly around sex and various forms of identity. broadly fueled by the emergence of the internet but it's something that happens regularly in all kinds of places. ours is benign. daesh is an extreme example of the converse. but you could also say pakistan under Zia. or the shocked America after 9/11. the point of human rights like all of the post-war stuff is that it sets a minimum standard that almost everyone agrees with. to protect us from these spasms from getting out of hand. or at least less out of hand
Fuckers who wilfully perpetuate or initiate these asymmetries, be they wastemen disembarking from Inflatable boats, or Rees-Moggs brushing crumbs off their pinstripes, should be mercilessly ______.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
But game theoretically the steady state won't always be uniform e.g. the hawk-dove game settles at half each. Not sure how substantial a quibble this is.
You raise a good point, and my forthcoming monograph on game theory in a process-biological milieu will tackle this thorny issue.
Long-view justice and the asymmetry of restitution. Big one right there.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Rights are commandments from the client's perspective: e.g. the right not to be killed corresponds to Thou shalt not kill. Baudrillard is correct in that one would expect the rights claim (not to be killed) to be most forcefully uttered once the horse has bolted and someone is about to be killed (by someone who ignored or was ignorant of the implicit injunction). Many rights may not straightforwardly map to common injunctions so perhaps rights-talk does add something to injunction-talk, rather than just being a reformulation of religious edicts in secular context.
The right to have rights presumably aims at the lesser authority that these indirect secular injunctions have compared to the direct religious injunctions - rightly so as rules that are human-independent, eternal and incontrovertible are qualitatively more authoritative than those agreed on, at best, provisionally by only the sum of all incarnated people at a particular point in time. What it boils down to is the contemporary lack of confidence in the existence of meaning outside of human discourse (this is evident in other modern day debates too).
The right to have rights presumably aims at the lesser authority that these indirect secular injunctions have compared to the direct religious injunctions - rightly so as rules that are human-independent, eternal and incontrovertible are qualitatively more authoritative than those agreed on, at best, provisionally by only the sum of all incarnated people at a particular point in time. What it boils down to is the contemporary lack of confidence in the existence of meaning outside of human discourse (this is evident in other modern day debates too).
I see. I counter that appeal to eternal, human-independent rights by stating there can only be human rights, and the rights of other biological entities. The rich seam has no right to remain unmined, but the corn has a right to remain unreaped.
(incidentally, this is why the exploitation of oil and natural gas are kosher, processing living matter into "biofuels", or pulling the wind’s teeth are haram)
Sorry, I'm talking bollocks now. I'm involved in a medical trial of nicotine eye patches, and they're a wild ride.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The reformulation of the prohibitions into rights bring about the oddness factor - where do the rights come from? - by doing away with or hiding the speaker of the prohibition e.g. the right not to be killed = thou shalt not kill, which is commanded by God...so for a fully secured right the God figure (= the speaker with whom one cannot argue) needs to be brought back into the picture.
Allow me to explain how process ontology informs both the question of human rights, and outcomes in game theory. This is based on my reading of Everything Flows. Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology by Daniel J. Nicholson, John Dupré
- Dynamic rights - If humans are seen as dynamic processes rather than fixed entities, the commonly enumerated set of static human rights may need rethinking. Rights may need to be more flexible and adaptive to account for the constantly changing physical, social, and psychological processes inherent in human existence.
- Relational rights - By emphasizing emergence from component relationships, process ontology highlights that humans are fundamentally relational beings, dependent on social connections. This could support arguments for more relational conceptions of rights, including collective rights held by cultural groups or indigenous communities.
- Developmental rights - The process view suggests that what constitutes human flourishing emerges gradually over time. This may lend support to ideas about developmental rights that change in nature over the course of an individual’s lifetime, such as special rights afforded to children.
- Anti-essentialism - Since process ontology denies static essences, it is deeply anti-essentialist. This could weaken traditional appeals to human nature or dignity as the basis for rights. More empirical, consequentialist justifications may be needed rather than metaphysical appeals.
- Valuing dynamic order - The process view values the stability and continuity provided by dynamic self-organizing processes. This could ground conceptions of rights focused on maintaining social order and peaceful interrelations between changing identities and communities.
- Dynamic games - Traditional game theory often assumes static payoff matrices and timeless rational choices. By emphasizing temporality, process biology suggests the need for modeling sequential, dynamic games that evolve over time as players interact and adapt.
- Non-equilibrium analysis - Process ontology focuses on flows, fluxes, and far-from-equilibrium dynamics in living systems. This could support greater use of non-equilibrium methods in game theory rather than only analyzing equilibrium states.
- Multi-scale analysis - The concepts of emergence and hierarchical organization in process biology indicate that strategic choices happen at multiple scales. Game theory may need to model decision-making and interaction effects across levels of agency.
- Relational rationality - Rather than focusing only on individual rationality, process biology's relational perspective suggests game theory adopt a more ecological view of rationality emerging from dynamic relationships between interdependent actors.
- Anti-essentialism - The anti-essentialist commitments of process ontology could lead to questioning blanket assumptions of uniform rationality or utility functions for analyzing strategic behavior. More context-sensitive analysis of diverse modes of strategic rationality may be needed.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
PETER HITCHENS: There's no such thing as Human Rights
PETER HITCHENS: Human rights do not exist. They are an invention, made out of pure wind. You should not rely on these flatulent, vague phrases to help you if you want to remain free.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
So putting limits on state power, clearly stating what the state is not allowed to do, is better than vague declarations of human rights? I think it's a powerful argument.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
King John doesn't look too happy about it does he?
shakahislop
Well-known member
what else is there. the idea of human rights are a countervailing force. they are finally an idea which protects us, backed up in a small number of places by legal structures. you could call it a kind of psychic infrastructure. wholesome concepts that emerged out of shellshocked horror that have persevered. the convention on the rights of the child was created in 1997 or something like that but listening to people who work in childcare and schools in england it's part of the boundaries that they are trained to work within.
shakahislop
Well-known member
in a way everything that's going on culturally, all these shifts, are partly a result of the way that children were treated 20 years ago. you can see one factor in the grime and drill assemblages as expressions of childhood i think. when i listen to old grime i hear GCSE english classes. there's dizzee tunes like imagine and some durrty goodz ones as well like childhood that sound like the GCSE poetry anthologies they used then. child rights were a rod running through the background of the new labour thing
There seem to be a fair few teachers who feel this has gone too far and made it impossible to maintain discipline in the classroom.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I posted this in the Grim Britannia thread a few weeks ago: teachers going on strike because the kids are beating them up.
Caldicot School: Striking teachers issue pupil blacklist
Striking staff hand a school a list of pupils they will not teach due to abuse in the classroom.
www.bbc.co.uk