Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

[Temujin]

Of course they will.

The POINT is that--if this is your assertion, then rights and what it is to be human in the first place are all subjective and depend on the whims of society.

Correct.

That being the case, what is to stop us from turning your logic on you--and deciding that you are subhuman, and thus not subject to rights? Because--THAT is where your logic ultimately leads.

Go on then. If that is your belief, then act on it. Start a political party based upon your belief. Hitler did quite well for a time, and still has adherents today. What stops his ideas from rising again is empowering decent people, educating rather than indoctrination, telling the truth and trusting people to be humane with each other. There will always be bigots who want to suppress Jews or people of colour or homosexuals or transgender people. Decent people will prevail if societies empower decency.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Correct.

Go on then. If that is your belief, then act on it. Start a political party based upon your belief. Hitler did quite well for a time, and still has adherents today. What stops his ideas from rising again is empowering decent people, educating rather than indoctrination, telling the truth and trusting people to be humane with each other. There will always be bigots who want to suppress Jews or people of colour or homosexuals or transgender people. Decent people will prevail if societies empower decency.

Sir, I agree there will always be bigots.

But here is the thing: on the one hand you want to claim rights indeed depend on the whims of society, that there is no objective truth or objective moral values.

On the other hand, you want to sit in judgement of racists and bigots and claim "decent people will prevail."

Sir, I believe just that very thing, namely that racism and bigotry are evil and that decent people will prevail in the end. In fact--this is what I see happening with abortion. Pro-lifers fought hard to get Roe overturned. It took 50 years, but we did it. Now we have to fight at the state level for the unborn. So--decent people are prevailing. This despite the intimidation and bully tactics of the abortion supporters.

But I also believe in objective moral values. I reject racism and bigotry becasue it is ontologically and fundamentally evil. The basis on which I judge racists and bigots, the basis on which I condemn racism and bigotry is based on an objective set of moral values and goodness.

You, sir, do not get to have your cake and eat it. You can't claim there are no objective moral values, and then sit in judgement of racists and bigots--as though--racism and bigotry are immoral and we need to fight against it. You can't tell me from an objective standpoint what "decency" or "evil" are. All you can do is give your subjective opinion as to what it is to be "decent" or "evil." And you know how it is with opinions. We all have them. We are entitled to them--but that does not mean we are correct in holding them.

I was going to give you credit at least for being consistent--until I read the rest of your post. Then I saw that you want to have your cake and eat it--which is--consistent with abortion supporters. In other words--the one thing abortion supporters ARE consistent on--is inconsistency.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

We ask ourselves

"Would we like to be slaves?"

Great question! No one wants to be a slave!

Now ask yourself the question "If I was unborn, would I want to be murdered? Would I want my mother to be able to have me surgically murdered?" If I was unborn--I sure wouldn't!

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Rights are contractual - we grant them to each other because we are equal.
There's not some uber right-granter of a human.

By the way--I forgot to point this out:

You seem to be suggesting our value as human beings is prior to the bestowal of rights. In other words---you seem to be saying "We are human, therefore we grant rights in recognition of our fundamental equality."

And that is fine. Now the question is "What does it mean to be human and how do you know?" The basis of denying rights--is a lack of humanity. That was the argument for slavery, after all.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Great question! No one wants to be a slave!

Now ask yourself the question "If I was unborn, would I want to be murdered? Would I want my mother to be able to have me surgically murdered?" If I was unborn--I sure wouldn't!

I cannot conceive of what it's like to be unborn.

Also, "would I like to be executed?" is not, IMO, an argument against the death penalty, because the reasons for execution override the criminal's right not to be executed.

 

[Eightcrackers]

You seem to be suggesting our value as human beings is prior to the bestowal of rights. In other words---you seem to be saying "We are human, therefore we grant rights in recognition of our fundamental equality."

Not quite.

We assign value to each other, then grant rights. "Inherent value" is, to me, an oxymoron.

And that is fine. Now the question is "What does it mean to be human and how do you know?"

"Know" implies some objective answer.
We decide what it means to be human. "right" or "wrong".

 

[mikeT]

Of course they will.

The POINT is that--if this is your assertion, then rights and what it is to be human in the first place are all subjective and depend on the whims of society.

The word you're looking for is "relative", not subjective. If rights and what it means to be human were subjective, they'd vary from person to person.

That being the case, what is to stop us from turning your logic on you--and deciding that you are subhuman, and thus not subject to rights? Because--THAT is where your logic ultimately leads.

It's not "logic"; it's "fact".

There are several things which keep you from deciding I'm subhuman and thus not subject to rights. The first is the law; you can think I'm subhuman all you want, but the minute you try to deny me my rights, law enforcement gets involved and you get punished (in a general sense). The second is that it takes a very large number of people and often a lot of time to change societal views. It's not like - overnight - society is going to treat me as a subhuman, where I was a human the previous day. The third is an awareness of human history, which contains warnings about the problems that kind of thinking will bring about. We've treated certain groups of humans as sub-humans before, and it's resulted in some pretty horrific things that most humans want stopped immediately.

There are a few barriers I've probably missed, but it's possible to get past them all, and theoretically have society decide that I'm not human any more. This possibility is not an argument against the kind of morality you're questioning, because that kind of morality has always existed, and will always exist. Human approximations of good and bad, right and wrong are fallible, and nothing will ever change this.

More importantly, even if there's a God who's a source of objective morality - without that God showing up and telling us where we screwed up, punishing the guilty and righting the wrongs - we're still stuck with human fallibility. We will always have problems with making bad moral judgments; your God literally cannot solve this problem until He decides to show up in person and take charge.

 

[Temujin]

Sir, I agree there will always be bigots.

But here is the thing: on the one hand you want to claim rights indeed depend on the whims of society, that there is no objective truth or objective moral values.

On the other hand, you want to sit in judgement of racists and bigots and claim "decent people will prevail."

Sir, I believe just that very thing, namely that racism and bigotry are evil and that decent people will prevail in the end. In fact--this is what I see happening with abortion. Pro-lifers fought hard to get Roe overturned. It took 50 years, but we did it. Now we have to fight at the state level for the unborn. So--decent people are prevailing. This despite the intimidation and bully tactics of the abortion supporters.

We have different ideas about what is decent. As one would expect as morality is subjective.

But I also believe in objective moral values. I reject racism and bigotry becasue it is ontologically and fundamentally evil. The basis on which I judge racists and bigots, the basis on which I condemn racism and bigotry is based on an objective set of moral values and goodness.

You, sir, do not get to have your cake and eat it. You can't claim there are no objective moral values, and then sit in judgement of racists and bigots--as though--racism and bigotry are immoral and we need to fight against it. You can't tell me from an objective standpoint what "decency" or "evil" are. All you can do is give your subjective opinion as to what it is to be "decent" or "evil." And you know how it is with opinions. We all have them. We are entitled to them--but that does not mean we are correct in holding them.

With regard to morals, there is no "correct". Everyone has their own ideas about right and wrong, broadly similar in most ways, but clearly different with regard to abortion.

I was going to give you credit at least for being consistent--until I read the rest of your post. Then I saw that you want to have your cake and eat it--which is--consistent with abortion supporters. In other words--the one thing abortion supporters ARE consistent on--is inconsistency.

No inconsistencies. I am at least as moral as you are, and I am as entitled to argue my moral case as you are. The person who is most persuasive will prevail. Since most people are intelligent and open to sensible argument, that means that the moral views that prevail will be acceptable to most people, the short hand for which is "decent". There was a time when most people accepted racism and slavery. That time has passed and they were persuaded otherwise. The issue of abortion is settled also, in most places, but remains in flux in the USA. You hope that most people will be persuaded that abortion is wrong. I hope that most will be persuaded that access to abortion is necessary. In time, one moral view or the other will prevail. That doesn't make those on the other side "wrong" objectively. Their views may become unfashionable to the point of being completely unacceptable, such as the views of racists, or they may remain a widely held minority view with hopes of a come back. Time will tell. "Objective morality" will not, and never has, featured in the debate, except as a failed concept brought up to bolster poor arguments.

 

[BMS]

By the same method we determine all aspects of public policy. We empower decision-makers in our societies.

So the rights granted in Saudi Arabia are alright for them are they? Or should rights be granted on a different basis?

 

[Temujin]

So the rights granted in Saudi Arabia are alright for them are they? Or should rights be granted on a different basis?

The rights granted in Saudi Arabia are those that the rulers have decreed and the population is willing to accept. If we think we are wrong, then we can seek to persuade, coerce or force them to change, subject to our own laws. Or we can accept the fact that not everyone agrees with us and that not everything will go our own way.

 

[BMS]

The rights granted in Saudi Arabia are those that the rulers have decreed and the population is willing to accept. If we think we are wrong, then we can seek to persuade, coerce or force them to change, subject to our own laws. Or we can accept the fact that not everyone agrees with us and that not everything will go our own way.

Good. So that would be the point with the Roe v Wade being overturned. The point I made about people in the US saying 'not my president' and others storming Capitol Hill is increasingly people wont put up with what they dont want.
The ultimate result of this we are seeing such as

Where people are trying to silence others with their mentally deranged lies.

So the idea that it is up to people to empower leaders is dependent on whether people will tolerate it?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

We have different ideas about what is decent. As one would expect as morality is subjective.

With regard to morals, there is no "correct". Everyone has their own ideas about right and wrong, broadly similar in most ways, but clearly different with regard to abortion.

No inconsistencies. I am at least as moral as you are, and I am as entitled to argue my moral case as you are. The person who is most persuasive will prevail. Since most people are intelligent and open to sensible argument, that means that the moral views that prevail will be acceptable to most people, the short hand for which is "decent". There was a time when most people accepted racism and slavery. That time has passed and they were persuaded otherwise. The issue of abortion is settled also, in most places, but remains in flux in the USA. You hope that most people will be persuaded that abortion is wrong. I hope that most will be persuaded that access to abortion is necessary. In time, one moral view or the other will prevail. That doesn't make those on the other side "wrong" objectively. Their views may become unfashionable to the point of being completely unacceptable, such as the views of racists, or they may remain a widely held minority view with hopes of a come back. Time will tell. "Objective morality" will not, and never has, featured in the debate, except as a failed concept brought up to bolster poor arguments.

Sir, you missed my point.

My point is this:

You, like most moral relativists want to claim that there are no objective moral values. Yet you ACT as though there are. You said the following:

"There will always be bigots who want to suppress Jews or people of colour or homosexuals or transgender people. Decent people will prevail if societies empower decency."

When you call people bigots---implicit in that statement is that bigotry is wrong and that people have an obligation to NOT be bigots.

Thus, your actions suggest you do not really believe your own nonsense about moral values being subjective. You want to assert that moral values are subjective becasue you know the minute you agree that moral values are objective--that leads you down a road you do not want to go.

 

[Temujin]

Sir, you missed my point.

My point is this:

You, like most moral relativists want to claim that there are no objective moral values. Yet you ACT as though there are. You said the following:

"There will always be bigots who want to suppress Jews or people of colour or homosexuals or transgender people. Decent people will prevail if societies empower decency."

When you call people bigots---implicit in that statement is that bigotry is wrong and that people have an obligation to NOT be bigots.

Thus, your actions suggest you do not really believe your own nonsense about moral values being subjective. You want to assert that moral values are subjective becasue you know the minute you agree that moral values are objective--that leads you down a road you do not want to go.

Don't be silly. I have moral values. You know what my position is. It is tedious to type out, "in my opinion" after every statement, but that is clearly implied. What is more significant is that you don't say "in my opinion". You just make moral statements as if they were established fact, not your personal view.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Good. So that would be the point with the Roe v Wade being overturned. The point I made about people in the US saying 'not my president' and others storming Capitol Hill is increasingly people wont put up with what they don't want.

They do not have to put up with what they don't want. This is why I cannot understand why abortion supporters are having such a meltdown over Roe being over-turned.

Roe being over-turned just means that the courts are neutral on the question of abortion and have no involvement in the question. If people want abortion, instead of running to the courts and asking the courts to impose it, they have go through the democratic, constitutional process to get it.

Since abortion supporters keep telling us pro-lifers how great abortion is and how the large majority of Americans love abortion and want more of it, then they should have no trouble getting legislation passed that legalizes abortion federally and or in their state. You see, since abortion is so popular, since the majority of Americans want more abortion and love abortion--why do we need the SCOTUS to impose it from on high? Does one need the courts to impose what is beloved and popular?

 

[Eightcrackers]

More importantly, even if there's a God who's a source of objective morality - without that God showing up and telling us where we screwed up, punishing the guilty and righting the wrongs - we're still stuck with human fallibility. We will always have problems with making bad moral judgments; your God literally cannot solve this problem until He decides to show up in person and take charge.

This is the god, let's remember, that enabled - by way of laws - some humans to be considered property, at one point in history.

And never once condemned the practise.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Don't be silly. I have moral values. You know what my position is. It is tedious to type out, "in my opinion" after every statement, but that is clearly implied. What is more significant is that you don't say "in my opinion". You just make moral statements as if they were established fact, not your personal view.

Yes, you hold to your opinions as IF they were established truth. You ACT as if your opinions are correct and true. You behave as though I am wrong.

So once again, your actions betray you. The fact is, what you believe--at least as far as you are concerned on these questions is NOT just opinion. Once again, you want to pretend you do not believe in objective truth----when in fact, you know you do believe in objective truth. You just do not want to admit there is such a thing--because once again, doing so forces you down a road you do not want to go down.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

This is the god, let's remember, that enabled - by way of laws - some humans to be considered property, at one point in history.

And never once condemned the practice.

That statement is true but egregiously misleading. As I have explained this countless times on these boards--I do not want to do so again.

But if you believe in subjective moral values, who are you to sit in judgement of the God the Bible anyway?

 

[Eightcrackers]

They do not have to put up with what they don't want. This is why I cannot understand why abortion supporters are having such a meltdown over Roe being over-turned.

Because it allowed States to deny women the right to abortion.

Abortion used to be legal everywhere; now, it isn't.

Since abortion supporters keep telling us pro-lifers how great abortion is and how the large majority of Americans love abortion and want more of it, then they should have no trouble getting legislation passed that legalizes abortion federally and or in their state. You see, since abortion is so popular, since the majority of Americans want more abortion and love abortion--why do we need the SCOTUS to impose it from on high? Does one need the courts to impose what is beloved and popular?

Fingers crossed, this happens.
Because there will be no knocking that down, once it does...

 

[Eightcrackers]

That statement is true but egregiously misleading. As I have explained this countless times on these boards--I do not want to do so again.

But if you believe in subjective moral values, who are you to sit in judgement of the God the Bible anyway?

Everybody that has said "my god is good" has sat in judgement of him, no less than anybody that has said "your god is bad".

IMO, all moral judgements are subjective - I am no less qualified to make moral judgements than is anybody else.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

IMO, all moral judgements are subjective - I am no less qualified to make moral judgements than is anybody else.

You wouldn't know it from your posts.