Yes, I think smiling bandit misunderstands the idea of mutual interest. It’s really no more complicated than: I agree not to kill you if you agree not to kill me. It’s in our mutual interest to set that down as a ground rule if we’re going to live together in the same society.
Not necessarily. They can act individually, without deliberate coordination, with outright hate for each other, and still take down mutual enemies, simply because they are all hunting the bigest threat/target/jackpot. And even if they did cooperate, they would not view it in terms of anything like mutual interest, but rather an alliance of convenience. The Nazi and Communist “cooperation” if the Weimar era comes to mind. The two were virtually at war and the former eradicated the latter. But they both viewed Weimar as their first target.
To conquer something, yes, you’d need mutual interest - and much more, loyalty. To destroy is not nearly so difficult. But I think you are confusing me for the not-so-hypothetical power-hungry. I admit my example was confusing.
I just plain wanted to be a Viking. Or a Ninja. or a Pirate.
Except that they do not neccessarily enhance our well-being, mutual or otherwise. Free Speech does not make us any better off materially; and a strong argument exists that it leads to unhappiness for most. After all, if we were all simply indoctrinated to say exactly one thing, we’d probably spend less time arguing or worrying about it. Politics would become a purely practical exercise. Let us face it: we do not pratice democracy because voters get thigns right, but because they ought to choose their own leaders.
And we’d all arguably be better off if we were forbidden access to any weapons at all, at least anything beyond a knife or club. And why not get rid of that silly idea that we ought to practice our own religious choice? Our real, concrete well-being would be vastly enhanced if we were all put to a religion like the common non-religion mix of Japan, with no real moralizing or worry but plenty of spirituality for everyone.
I do not say these things to represent your views, but are what I think would be the natural, even logical end result. We might not follow it properly, but there it would lie. But we do not do this and rights historically have had very little to do with “mutual interest” or even anyone’s personal interest. People are allowed to speak their minds not because it serves some abstract public good but because it is right that people be allowed to say what they want to say.
I, of course, believe you are in the classical mistake of choosing one part, saying it is the whole, and then discarding all other parts in favor of your distorted version, because it is your preference. There is no shame in advocating your preference; I think you err in assuming that your preference is naturally the “real” mutual self-interest.
I don’t believe in luck. Not in anything more important than the lottery. But let me run with this idea here.
Let us say that said powerful person takes over. Now let us further say that this individual takes away all your freedoms, all your choices, but gives you exactly what you most want. You are, in effect, happy. Call it a President, a King, or God if you like. I would rebel; fight; kill. Not because I could not be happy but because I would know that no matter how much I enjoyed life, I could never accept this
Hence my views of my religion; God allowed us to do as we please, even reject him, without fighting back.
Ah, a man (Woman? Kitty-Cat?) after me own heart! I agree, truth precedes utility, though I like to offer up the argument to trip up utilitarians.
But I would also like to point out that any devotion to an abstract truth is not at all in any mutual interest, and mutual interest is defined by individual interest. Unless people actually value the same things, it has no meaning.
OK, here you’re just wrong. There is all kinds of empirical evidence that we would not be happier if we were indoctrinated to say the same thing. Else, the North Koreans would be the happiest people on earth. Whenever repressive regimes have curtailed basic human rights, people have risked their lives to get out-- even when they were assured their basic physical needs (food, shelter, etc) would be met by staying under that regime (witness the former USSR and its satellite countries).
I think the bill of right is a codification of rights that thinking people believe are inherent in birth. Human rights precede law. Most people understand when their rights are being infringed.
However in practical terms they only exist when the state says they do. Ask the Japanese who lost all theirs in an instant during WW2.
Even there, there was only a standard of comparison. Heck, do you know North Koreans aren’t the happiest people on earth? I don’t believe it, but I’ve never been there and don’t know. In fact, I’d have to say that from accounts, most people in North Korea are, if not fanatical, perfectly happy except for the regime’s incompetence. But it certainly gives them a purpose and an identity, and while I think NK is morally wrong to do so, I can’t pretend that letting people randomly wander about and decide things for themselves makes them any happier.
In any event, I’m actually not sure the Communists are a good standard, since in pretty much all their countries there was either vast material want (often outright famines) and repression was accomplished only in the face of people knowing, really, that the Truth Was Out There.
That’s a different thing from a Right, however. What you propose is a voluntary ageement of people who are already, presumably, willing to live in harmony. It only becomes a Right when we presume that people have an innate duty to provide or prevent that thing.
I do not view rights as things which can be taken away. If I have a Right to something, it cannot be removed.
But even if people don’t really want to live in harmony, they may realize they have no choice–this is part of the lesson of Hobbes’ State of Nature. No man has the power to stand against everyone else, and so each man has an incentive to band together with the others in a pact of mutual non-aggression (and indeed a pact which recognizes many other mutual interests). It is only by banding together to pursue mutual interest that people can obtain any sort of power–or security–at all.
Well, not supposing to speak for others, but I would argue that we always have rights in the sense that it is always rational for people with our particular interests to enter into a mutual agreement to recognize certain interests as off-limits. But whether people recognize that it is rational, or recognize these rights–again, that is a purely contingent matter, regardless of what account of rights you ultimately give. But a social contract account like this one is compatible with saying that rights are there in some sense whether we recognize them or not–rights are interests we rationally ought to mutually recognize as off-limits to certain types of interference, whether we recognize them or not.
Bingo. Rights are social ideals we decide to protect through law - usually deriving from some perceived wrong in the past.
The argument to codify rights into law usually takes the form of an emotional appeal to a higher power or order, but if you look at the reasons these rights were enacted into law, it was to prevent social injustices perceived in other governments throughout history and around the world.
Not true. People living in East Germany, for example, had a decent standard of living. Yet they still risked their lives to get out. But if you’re going to just dismiss my evidence out of hand, and claim that maybe North Koreans are the happiest people on earth, then we probably shouldn’t waste our time debating each other.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the definition of “social construct”.
Well, we “presume” by mutually deciding what those rights are. Before we decide, though, the rights can’t be said to exist in any meaningful way.
But the problem is, we all have to agree what those rights are. If we all just go about our merry way with whatever we each individually think are our rights, that’s absolutely meaningless. I may think I have the right to sleep with Jessica Alba, but so what?
Also, there is no objective way to determine what all the rights are. There is no experiment we can do, or sacred text we can consult. It’s something we have to mutually agree on.
A want to chime in and agree that our sense of what our rights “ought” to be is heavily informed by human nature and the sorts of creatures we are. We have some built-in ideas about fairness that are the result of our evolutionary history as social animals. Any formal social contract or system of laws that ignores those built-in ideas is going to be fighting an uphill battle.
Of course, that doesn’t therefore mean that a social contract that goes against our natural sense of right and wrong is therefore a bad idea, it might be a good idea. But you’re going to have a tough time convincing people it’s a good idea, and it’s probably going to be more trouble than it’s worth if you have lots of people unshakeably convinced that the social policy is unfair.
True–probably a good deal of our moral sense is ‘hard wired’. It’s pretty well documented that other primates, like chimpanzees, seem to have an innate sense of fairness:
A system of morals, to be tenable, probably has to mesh to some extent with our hard-wired moral tendencies.
And I think our “hard-wired morals” likely derive from empathy (see:mirror neurons)
Seriously, I don’t think you understand what the term means. Mutual interest doesn’t mean you and some other person have any good feelings for each other or have any concern for each other’s well-being. Mutual interest means you both want something and recognize you can more easily obtain what you want by working together. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin didn’t like each other but they had a mutual interest in defeating Hitler.
Mutual interest is actually probably more important in situations where there’s no trust between individuals. Imagine two small towns back in the old west. One’s settled a farming village settled by Amish and Quakers. The other is a bordertown full of bandits and outlaws.
Now in the first village you could probably be able to ignore any socializing. You’d be fairly confident that your neighbours aren’t going to take advantage of you. But in the second town, everyone knows that given an opportunity pretty much everyone else in town would rob and kill them. In a town like this, everyone would get together and announce that anyone got stealing or murdering would be strung up the next morning. And it would be enforced too. Because if people heard that somebody shot a guy and nobody did anything about it, it would encourage other people to start shooting people and everybody would be in more danger. It would be in everyone’s mutual interest to work together because they didn’t like or trust each other as individuals. And anyone who chose to be a loner and make it clear that he wasn’t going to get involved in keeping the peace, would find the feeling was recipricated and nobody else was interesting in protecting him and he was now a vulnerable target.
I give your post mad props.