Why evaluate posts on Steemit according to scholarly citations? I'm new here, but I don't see an audience for scholarly work here.
I spent many years studying philosophy as a hobby before I realized that there are entire categories of philosophy that are better classified as literature... so citing them might be nice for giving credit, but not for building a rational case for your point.
I see the challenge of philosophy in a place like this is to help people overcome cognitive bias and learn methods for discerning between psychobabble and some kind of rationality. I also see people here (and in every other philosophy forum) talking about philosophy, then telling people what to do in the real world. The real world is the domain of science, not literature.
Why? I think you've almost answered the question for me. A scholarly approach to anything is underappreciated on Steemit - but I'm only qualified to assess philosophical scholarship. I don't see citing sources as a matter of building a case. The last thing I want people to do is indulge in appeals to suppose authority. However, it is also the case, both in philosophy and (I suspect) in general, that at least one of the two following ideas are somewhat true:
Ah - the philosophy as literature idea. This depends on what your view of literature is, and whether or not it can actually do anything useful or tell us anything about the world or ourselves. I do agree on the value of philosophy in helping discern psychobabble and , to use the technical term, bullshit, from views that actually have some good reasons for believing them. And you know, broadly construed, some science could also be considered literature...
Rather pedantically, I'd categorise this as a philosophical statement, such is the value-judgement and metaphysical baggage being smuggled therein. You are right, in that there is a very real sense that the domain of empirical and technological endeavours rightly belongs to science. I want things like power stations and cars to be designed and run by electrical and mechanical engineers, not philosophers!
But, I don't want engineers to tell me why I should value individual rights over collective utilitarian outcomes, how I should live my life, whether or not animals (or indeed anyone) has a 'soul', or why we do/don't live in a simulation. What certainly don't want them doing is telling me that the only things that are 'real' are that which are captured by what we can observe, and/or what our current theories describe. Science, as Neil deGrasse Tyson regularly proves, does not necessarily qualify you to say anything sensible about any of these sort of questions.
All of that said, I'd love to hear your views on this, (and anything else really) - be as scholarly, or not, as you like.
As a scientist, I would say that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that any rights exist. I can not observe or measure them.
I was previously a believer in the Bentham's utilitarianism.... it took me 6 months of internal struggle to admit that a particular utilitarian belief that I had was unscientific. I need to post that story here on Steemit.
The short version for utilitarianism is that I'm OK if you make personal decisions about your own behavior using some kind of utilitarian calculus, voodoo, astrology, or whatever, but politicians who force peaceful people to do things against their will are rationalizing their misdeeds by referring to utility. There is a lack of evidence to support the accuracy and reliability of ANY utilitarian "common good" measurement procedure... specifically, one that can measure something that people like (free money for not working) on the same scale as loss of liberty (e.g., from government regulations that restrict behavior or loss of real or financial property from government tax or action).
If you are a believer in utilitarianism, I'd like to arrange a conversation some time.
...p.s., Look ma! No citations!
As it happens, I, like most philosophers except utilitarians, do not think any one system of ethics can give coherent answers in all situations. Sometimes it makes sense to consider the greater good, sometimes individual rights or individual lives are more important.
(The only system of ethics I can never quite get into is virtue ethics. This approach is, IMHO, nowhere near being capable of generating action-guiding principles.)
Aha, by 'scientist', you mean 'empiricist'. What an amazing coincidence that the only things that exist are those which you can observe. I mean really, what are the odds of that? I am being a bit facetious, but my point is that sometimes we conflate 'things that don't exist' with things that 'we can say nothing about within certain boundaries'.
Also, you do know there are lots of things we do not observe directly, or indeed at all. I have seen 2 objects, and I have seen a squiggle on a page that is said to represent but I have never seen the number 2, but I am not sure I have ever observed the number 2 itself. Likewise, I have observed examples of things in a category, but not the whole category. I certainly have no objective reason to think that categories or types have any objective existence.
And don't give me that line about 'lack of evidence' - I know that trick too. Let me rephrase this: You rule certain things out of existence on the basis of an absence of proof. But absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence, or in your case, evidence that something lacks the quality of 'existence'.
Here's a question: How do you observationally prove that the only things that exist are the things that we can observe?
Let me clarify. I am not trying to trick you. The ethical and moral beliefs of others have a profound impact on me personally and on nearly everyone else on the planet, so I take it seriously.
When I say "there is a lack of evidence...." I am not claiming that the thing does not exist. It is possible that the main characters in Star Wars existed a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. I have a lack of evidence to suggest that those characters existed in the real world. I stand ready to modify my statement upon seeing the evidence. If you want to pray to the Jedi or guide your own behavior via virtue ethics, and you do so peacefully, that is OK with me. I would prefer people to not use the type of sloppy reasoning that causes harm to OTHERS (either directly or by proxy through their government) based on belief in things for which there is no evidence.
I say this in part because I have an abundance of evidence that suggests that conflict exists and is often justified by moral beliefs or similar beliefs about the way things should be (e.g., most wars, all political conflict, and domestic conflict, such as "my wife left the house during the day and had lunch with her friend and her friend's husband, so I punched my wife's teeth out").
I prefer for people to recognize the lack of agreement on political, religious, and moral issues, consider the possibility that humans lack an accurate and reliable internal mechanism for determining the truth of such beliefs, and follow the path by which we all refrain from harming peaceful people based on these beliefs. I would like people to understand that those beliefs are prone to error despite how emotionally attached we are to our own moral beliefs and how confident we are that the other guy is wrong.
I suspect that you prefer to not be harmed by somebody who uses sloppy reasoning to justify their harm against peaceful people, because you said in your previous reply: