wilderness: good day sir edit: I clarified above and erased "circular proof" from my original statement cause I was talking about something different than begging the question, which I haven't ever come across begging the question also having the name circular proof. I erased the original posting here for clarity's sake and left in parenthesis what was originally present before this edit.
good day sir
edit: I clarified above and erased "circular proof" from my original statement cause I was talking about something different than begging the question, which I haven't ever come across begging the question also having the name circular proof. I erased the original posting here for clarity's sake and left in parenthesis what was originally present before this edit.
http://www.amazon.com/Historians-Fallacies-Toward-Historical-Thought/dp/0061315451
Fischer:The fallacy of the circular proof is...
pg 49
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
ok. So circular proof has two different meanings. simply trying to be accurate. i was hoping you could show me where begging the question and circular proof have been used in the same way. I knew it had to be since Robin Smith noted how in modern times the two terms have been used "interchangeably", but as he notes Aristotle meant something different and then explains the difference.
thanks
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
wilderness: ok. So circular proof has two different meanings. simply trying to be accurate. i was hoping you could show me where begging the question and circular proof have been used in the same way. I knew it had to be since Robin Smith noted how in modern times the two terms have been used "interchangeably", but as he notes Aristotle meant something different and then explains the difference. thanks
No problem. But if you read the book, David Fischer doesn't completely conflate begging-the-question and circular proof, he says that they are related. Which fits well within Prior Analytics and your citation of Robin Smith.
Regardless, in this case [human rights] it's still a fallacy.
Angurse: Regardless, in this case [human rights] it's still a fallacy.
of course you know i disagree on that point by my taking of an axiom.
as for what you said previously in your post that's interesting Fischer doesn't completely conflate the two. i think the relation is one of direction. I'm interpreting begs the question as being dialectical; whereas the circular proof I introduced to this thread is a demonstration.
Torsten: Can rights just exist, because human beings exist? Can one put a legal obligation onto others to observe/respect/enforce those rights: Human rights do not exist.Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue ofbeing human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought tohave, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not todeny the individual X and obligates the government to protect theindividual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, toqualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimalconditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals tobe so obligated. The second is that there is an effective governmentmechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beingsmay inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or bothconditions are not met without losing their humanity. In suchcircumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that suchhuman beings would continue to possess rights. Since there arecircumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim thata human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Humanbeings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human. Rights haveto be founded on an alternative basis. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/8/4/p82840_index.html Any comments or further thoughts
Can rights just exist, because human beings exist? Can one put a legal obligation onto others to observe/respect/enforce those rights:
Human rights do not exist.Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue ofbeing human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought tohave, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not todeny the individual X and obligates the government to protect theindividual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, toqualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimalconditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals tobe so obligated. The second is that there is an effective governmentmechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beingsmay inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or bothconditions are not met without losing their humanity. In suchcircumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that suchhuman beings would continue to possess rights. Since there arecircumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim thata human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Humanbeings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human. Rights haveto be founded on an alternative basis. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/8/4/p82840_index.html
Human rights do not exist.Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue ofbeing human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought tohave, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not todeny the individual X and obligates the government to protect theindividual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, toqualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimalconditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals tobe so obligated. The second is that there is an effective governmentmechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beingsmay inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or bothconditions are not met without losing their humanity. In suchcircumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that suchhuman beings would continue to possess rights. Since there arecircumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim thata human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Humanbeings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human. Rights haveto be founded on an alternative basis.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/8/4/p82840_index.html
Any comments or further thoughts
Concerning this paragraph, I agree with the first statement. Obligations demand more then one party. For how can you be obligated to yourself? That seems like a bizarre thought. However, I disagree with the concept that a governmental institution must be founded in order to protect said rights. Obviously polycentric legal systems have been discussed here ad nauseum, so do we really need to continue into it again?
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap