What poppycock is this? Nauplius a Holder? Nauplius is admitted commoner at best.
He has no rights to lands, responsibilities beyond that.
He has openly declared himself a practitioner of his own variant of the Faith and openly worships the Red God.
Tell me again about his “holder rights?”
Uh … just for the sake of avoiding confusion, Ms. Leshrac? Double-check whom you’ve quoted. Those aren’t Mr. Kumakatok’s words.
So-- the Amarr pretty much don’t justify much of anything without quoting their scriptures.
You seem to want to apply reason to faith, and say that faith is phantasmnal, while reason is real-- therefore, everything must be justified in terms of reason. But, if you’re asking for how a rational person justifies slavery, the rational counter is, how do you, as a rational person, justify “freedom?” “Inalienable rights?”
Let me put a question to you: where is the society truly founded upon reason?
Or maybe an observation: there is none. The reason being, “reason” is a tool for finding one’s way towards ends whose value comes from elsewhere. “Reason” alone gives no basis for judgment.
At base, all societies are founded upon subjective human wants and aspirations, and there’s no objective reason to prefer one set of wants and aspirations over another. And yet, these societies try to create frameworks for guiding or cultivating those wants and aspirations. The stars don’t care whether those aspirations succeed or fail; in the end, their success, objectively, doesn’t matter. It’s all one to the universe.
But it matters to people-- not because of reason, but because people prefer happiness over suffering. Why? … because that’s how people are. In service to those goals, people come up with stories that bind their societies-- social tools. This isn’t avoidable, really, if you want to continue to pursue a happy life, because if all you follow is “reason” there’s no reason why people should be happy.
Looked at in this way, the Amarr have one very effective story. For good or ill, it also makes them a little aggressive as a society. Is that avoidable? Well, maybe, but, not right now.
The Federation has a story of its own, which is also a little aggressive-- in more subtle ways, though. Caldari and Matari have stories, too, stories based on ethnic and cultural identity, stories that create an “us” and a “them,” and that also don’t survive very well in the cold light of reason.
That’s natural. We’re not a rational species-- but neither should we be, because, again, reason, in isolation, is a tool, but offers no values of its own.
The question isn’t whose way is ultimately rational; nobody’s is. The question is, which stories to tell, and which gods to worship, if we want to be happy.
Because, broadly speaking, we do.
Aria, seriously, that is the most wishy washy nonsense I’ve ever heard. It’s not “rational” or “reasonable” to maximize happiness over suffering? That would be the only rational thing to do, when humanity is hardwired for exactly that. It would be rational and reasonable to assume happiness is preferable to misery, yes? No, we don’t really care that the universe doesn’t give a crap or that the stars are indifferent to this, because we are neither of those things. The universe being indifferent does not mean we get to be.
So the question then becomes, is it then acceptable or justifiable to enslave the majority in order to maximize the happiness of the very powerful few? Is it the rational thing to do? Is it the reasonable thing to do? I’m sure for those writing the scriptures and those in the position to maintain their own happiness with said scriptures, it is indeed so. This is why tight control over scripture and its interpretation is maintained, after all.
Once you change perspective to include the happiness of the masses on the other hand… well…
… things change. Of course, you’ve already in your own words said you simply do not care about anyone but those in direct contact with you, so I suppose the former perspective is more acceptable.
Nauplius is a commoner.
Ms Jenneth, I appreciate your response and you raised some interesting points, which I have to admit I’m surprised my other interlocutors didn’t. Ms Del’thul addressed some of them already but I’d like to add my own thoughts.
Well, that brings us to an interesting question, what is faith?
I can answer that, at least for myself. Allow me to first refine the terms “freedom” and “inalienable rights” to “human rights” which I think is a bit more encompassing and definable. My belief that humans have rights to freedom of choice, autonomy, safety, and the like is an axiom. From such presuppositions all my reason and compassion as a humanist flows. While I can provide proofs and evidence for the logical outcomes and beliefs of those axioms I cannot provide the same for the axioms themselves. They are axioms and the outcomes are the justification for my continued use of them.
So, I am able to use reason to find my way to my humanism even if the axioms themselves are not provable in any way.
I think it’s irrelevant. A society is a diverse group of people where not all of them share the same beliefs. Each person in a society must find what holds as a justified belief or doesn’t. Some are better at it than others and others are fortunate to get help along the way. While nobody can claim to have it all figured out the more people who hold justified beliefs than not the better I think a society is.
I never said it did. As I’ve stated earlier, my reason is based on certain presuppositions that I hold to be true and the conclusions I draw from them seem to be borne out.
As I’ve already shown, this is not necessarily true
Certainly not, I struggle and fail to be rational all the time. What of it?
To extend that further, is the narrative justified to continue unmodified and can reason be effective in aligning the common narrative with observed reality?
But, then you understand already: for the Amarr, the axiom is God, and they don’t see their outcomes as so bad.
You have your beliefs, unprovable, founded in faith, and use reason to find your way from there. If you attack their axiom on the basis that it’s not provable or founded in reason, yours is subject to the same attack.
(As for why others didn’t argue this way before? Well … they can’t, really, without setting their faith aside. I’m a slightly unusual person here in that I’m a heathen living alongside the Amarr-- sort of a long term project of SFRIM’s. I can argue this way precisely because, to me, their god is a story, like your axioms about human rights.)
You answered this in the self-same post, actually, Aria.
“Broadly speaking, we want to be happy.” There’s some room to contest that, mind you, but that would all hinge on ‘what is happiness?’ and similar philosophical constructs. So let me turn this around a little bit.
Broadly speaking, we don’t want to suffer. Whether happiness is the state of experiencing joy, or experiencing satisfaction, or of finding a purpose and dedicating oneself to it, of seeking fulfilment through the exercise of one’s capabilities to their fullest extent… that’s all something that people can argue over for millennia—and have. But universally in all of those is the underpinning of: human beings do not want to suffer.
When a human being is hungry, they seek food. When they’re tired, they seek rest. When they’re hurt, they seek comfort. Yes, there are plenty of examples where a human being or a group of human beings has set aside that desire for a purpose they deemed more important in the short-term, but that’s a higher-order decision. It’s a product of rationality, of reason, over-riding the fundamental drive of the organism. As a general rule, human beings don’t want to suffer. They want to not suffer.
This, by the way? Is reasonable. It’s reasonable because of deoxyribonucleic acid.
DNA exhibits a distinct self-interest in propagation. You can question why it does this, but the fact remains: it does. The purpose of ‘life’ is, in fact, ‘life’: to replicate, to endure, to make more of itself. Yes, the Amarr, along with countless philosophers, charlatans, theologians, and fools throughout the history of mankind, can argue there’s a higher purpose at work. They can say there’s another purpose, a deeper ‘meaning’ of life. They can do that, and they do, in fact, do that.
The only problem they run into is: we can show DNA’s singular drive to self-replicate. We have the direct observation of it. We have the hard data. So, reason and rationality would then dictate that in order to successfully assert a more fundamental and overarching purpose to life, we’d need to be able to establish those competing claims at least as securely. We would need direct observation of the motivator of that purpose.
God has a plan? Great, show me God. The universe wants to know itself? Awesome, show me the universe—not just individual, miniscule components thereof—demonstrating the ability to want. You want to establish a competitor to ‘our existence is a cascade of chemical reactions that serve primarily to propagate themselves’ as a ‘purpose’ for life, then the competitor needs to at least be as verifiable as that.
So, absent that verification, the verifiable ‘purpose’ to life, the behavior that gives rise to the rest of it, is the action of DNA. After all, we’re working within the ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ framework, as you’ve requested.
Rationally, it stands to reason that if the basic behavior of DNA and the complex organisms that arise from it is to self-replicate, then they want to not suffer. They want to not suffer because suffering is an indicator of sub-optimal conditions. Hunger denotes scarcity of resources. Fatigue indicates spent fuel and a need for maintenance. Pain indicates damage. All of these are signs of danger that may soon impede life function, and so, reduce the chances for successful replication.
So: DNA-based human beings want to not suffer. Reasonable. Rational. Demonstrable. Directly-observed data.
This is a given, really. It’s one of the underpinnings of the basic social contract that all societies are built on. But it’s important to have a common framework from which to view this, so let’s establish that.
‘Free’ is the state of not being constrained.
A ‘Right’ is the freedom to do, or seek to have, a thing, not based on permission.
A ‘Natural Right’ is a right that arises from the simple biomechanical ability to exercise that right.
Like any other animal, human beings have the natural right to do whatever they are capable of doing. If you want to kill, and you’re capable of killing, nature says you can kill, because you can kill. It’s that simple.
Cooperation enables greater return on effort invested. This, like the activity of DNA, is observed data. However, in the long run, cooperation requires trust. How likely am I to help you make an axe if I think you’re going to use it on me? Not very.
And so, the social contract: We agree to abrogate our natural rights, to set aside our natural right to harm one another, in order to secure cooperation and safety. In particular, by agreeing not to kill me, you secure the safety of me not trying to kill you. The purpose of this cooperation is to get what we want. If we weren’t getting things we wanted, why would we be agreeing not to do things we might want to do later? This is the fundamental basis for society, and it is rational. It is reasonable. You can see the rational steps taken via reason to arrive at that position—and if you can’t, re-read the last bit, cuz I just walked you through them.
So, the purpose of society is, by and large, to enable people to get what they want. These desires can be conflicting, of course. Not everyone can be in charge, for example. So, in order to function, societies have to have ways to prioritize these desires. This allows society to seek to give as many people as much of what they want as is realistically possible. Along the way, it also allows mechanisms for directing and focusing the efforts of the society. But the basic purpose of society, the thing it is built upon is the promise of ‘if you work with the rest of us, the rest of us will not do things to hurt you’.
Because that basic, fundamental thing… is what pretty much everyone wants: to not suffer. Getting that is why the animals we call homo sapiens are part of society in the first place. So with this in mind, the opening sentence of the previous paragraph changes, for clarity, for correctness:
The purpose of society is to enable the greatest number of people to achieve their desires in ways that do not adversely impact the ability of other people to achieve theirs.
Now, your question is about ‘freedom’. For the sake of certain pilots whose overzealously closed minds refuse to allow them to tell their translation software to use more nuanced context-based algorithms, when we speak of ‘freedom’, we’re not talking about ‘chaos’. We’re talking about ‘self-determinism’, about ‘agency’: the ability to make meaningful decisions and put those decisions into action in ways that directly affect one’s own life.
There are, basically, two models of society. One is top-down, the other is bottom-up. In the top-down model, authority rests in the Leader, and is doled out to those beneath the Leader, filtering through however many levels of the social hierarchy until it reaches the masses. Agency is limited: the higher you are, the more you have.
The bottom-up model says that authority rests in the masses, and those masses, by some method, decide on leaders to bear the burdens of enacting the collective will. Agency is fundamentally limited only by the limitations the masses, through their agents, place upon it.
The top-down model has its advantages. Organizationally, it’s easier. Decision-making is concentrated, accountability is, as well. Hierarchies of directive and obedience are clear. That’s why it’s in use in every Empire in New Eden in some regard. Even in the Federation, the top-down model is the structure of the military and to some extent, that of most private companies.
The bottom-up model has its own advantages. Mostly, these are checks on the power of Authority. Leaders can be replaced from below, abuses curbed. The limitations on agency are, in theory, only those needed to prevent suffering.
In most cases, society’s a complex enough construct that we see both, simultaneously. Take for example the Caldari Mega-corporations. Many would call them a top-down structure, but—at least in principle—that top-down structure rests firmly on the basis of shareholders. For all the power the CEOs have, if the masses of shareholders express their dissatisfaction, the CEOs will change course, or risk being removed.
To one degree or another, the Tribes and the Clans work much the same way: leadership ranges from fairly hands-off to very authoritarian, but if the members of a Clan want a change in how their Clan is run, they can change it. If enough Clans want a change in how the Tribe is run, they can change it. The principle is simple: leaders are there to serve those they lead.
Let’s be clear here, though, service is not subservience. Leaders are charged not with obeying the will of the masses, but the interests of the masses. If everyone in a Clan wants to go and shoot their neighbor, but the Clan Chief knows that doing that will just get them all killed because their neighbor has a bigger fleet AND already hates them and is just looking for an excuse? That Chief’s responsibility is to not let his Clan go shoot their neighbor.
It’d be nice if he also explained why. It’d be even nicer if they could get together with the neighbors and maybe work things out, but that’s largely irrelevant to our discussion. In that scenario, the Clan has the option of ousting the Chief and putting someone else in who’ll do what they want. If they do that, though… well, they’ll deserve what they got coming to them.
So that’s the two models of society, and the answer to the eternal question of ‘BUT DOES IT BLEND??’ It does, to varying degrees of success, basically everywhere.
So let’s look at that question again.
[H]ow do you, as a rational person, justify “freedom?”
Given, again, that what we’re talking about is agency, self-determination, not rampant chaos… well, it should be pretty obvious.
Of the two models of society, one is far more prone to inefficiency and waste, even wide-spread corruption in small ways. The other, conversely, is prone to abuses of efficiency, of abuses that only serve the needs of a select few.
If, as we’ve established, the purpose of society is to serve the needs of the greatest number of people while minimizing the suffering of as many people as possible, then a model which is prone to abuses that directly contradict that purpose is less optimal, and in fact, counter-productive.
So, reason indicates that a ‘rational person’ would employ such a model only where its potential abuses can be held in check by an overarching example of the competing model.
Not a bad question, though.
No, “God” has definable attributes, defined as a super person, and is henceforth a claim.
To compare an axiom to an article of faith is a stretch. Do you call mathematical axioms articles of faith? Of course not, because useful, measurable and consistent results come from accepting the axioms as true. If your foundations for your beliefs lack the above then they’re not axioms. Do we get the same results from articles of faith as found in religion?
No, as you’re conflating axiom with faith. Again I ask, what is faith?
Well-- if we’re talking about mathematical axioms, things change.
Are we talking about a mathematical axiom, though? I don’t think we are. This is “axiom” as a self-evident truth. (I’d argue there’s no such thing, which might be why I’m comfortable comparing “human rights” and “God” this way.)
Still, there might be a little difference, in that God is maybe taken more as something that oughtn’t be questioned by the faithful, than as something supposedly self-evident, so there’s that. But if I deny your allegedly self-evident truth, and you tell me I shouldn’t question it…?
(I might answer Arrendis when I have time to read her essay.)
I would venture a guess and say no, it’s not “self-evident truth” but “the assumption we make as the starting point for a chain of logic”. It’s a widely accepted use of the word axiom, and it relies on the following constructed logical arguments to hold true to verify itself. It’s one of the very few actually reasonable starting points one can make when exploring the universe and veracity, since otherwise you’d be stuck at the very starting point unable to verify anything since you wouldn’t get past said point.
Looking around, and assuming the word’s coming through our translators cleanly, Miz, it looks like what you’re talking about is its application in formal logic (or mathematics), and what I’m pointing to is its (arguably) common usage. The two kind of blur, though. Here’s my favorite definition I’ve seen so far:
- n (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident
A non-falsifiable proposition. Sounds a little like God, as seen by a believer, doesn’t it?
If you use it as such, but as I said I suspect this is not how it’s being used by your opponents in this discussion. It’s certainly not how it reads, when you see her explaining exactly that she’s using it as a launching point for arguments/reasoning, the results of which reinforces and supports the initial axiom.
This does not sound like “self-evident truth” to me.
It’s kind of disturbing how eager you are to try and lower your opponents to ‘faithful’ and raise the faith the other way.
It’s not often that I am so thankful for a good Achura moral relativist smoke bomb to put everyone on the same murky playing field, but now is one of those times. Now these two can verbally punch and kick at thin air instead of their chosen enemies.
Thanks, Vesper.
Don’t worry, Aldieboo. Next time you guys crawl out from under the rock to try squeaking about your atrocity-enabling society, culture and faith, you’ll get just as much attention as this time, and the time before that, and before that.
We didn’t though; Diana Kim started this fight, then you started talking about me and I unwisely dipped my toe in, only to get fully dragged into the swamp.
Next time, can we just resolve to shoot each other and be done with it?
I doubt you’ll set foot in the Deck, and I doubt we’ll get a contract versus PIE, but I suppose we can dream.
Because it was never about Nauplius, it was about the assertion made that slaves are property and have no inherent ability to give or deny consent about their treatment. In effect, that they should not be considered human beings but treated just like any other piece of inanimate property.
As such, if a particularly edgy mood strikes me, I could just hop on over to the Amarr Empire, buy some Amarr, Ealur, Gallente, and Ni-Kunni slaves on the SCC market and who knows, maybe I’ll shoot them all into a star, set them all on fire, or why not just be real old school and behead them so I can make a giant mountain of skulls as my own personal art installation someplace in the Empire?
If any Amarrians object on the grounds of morality or inhumanity I should just say, look Amarrians I’m not sure why you are all so upset about it, those slaves are property and your objections are no different than if I decided to spend all my disposable ISK on a bunch of ships and reprocessed them all.
Why? An axiom is an axiom. Maths is a very structured form of logic. The point is that the internal consistency depends on the axiom. It’s the point when drilling down where “the blade turns.”
It is self-evident because all the logic or maths fails without it being true. There’s nothing supernatural about an axiom. Humans evidently exist, therefore a discussion about their rights is a reasonable discourse and subject to laws of logic which spring from axioms.
God continues to be a claim. The fact that he, she it or they is purportedly supernatural is only another layer of claims laid on top of the god claim. Something else is the axiom, because even if a god were proven to be true the worth of their being worshipped and obeyed would still be in question.
I admit I’m impressed. Doubly so if she made that article on a device similar to mine while trying to perform her day to day duties.
The common vernacular is often where those who wish to push the absurd operate. The point is to use the common usage to dress up their fraudulent claims in the trappings of respectability that comes with actual hard work and research.
If you did it in that order, you’d have no mountain of skulls let alone people to behead. Since we’re all going on about logic and such.