God vs Human Rights

5wize

Well-known member
OK, that's fair.

My principle issue with human rights is that the language has become so debased that the term inspires distrust, rather than trust, and connotes manipulation instead of aspiration, to me, anyways.
Agree... -Any useful concept will be molded into a bad tool somehow.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
The moral realist claims that there is a core set of moral principles that are objective, so we would not accept your statement that morality in total is subjective.
I find that point of view completely unsupported and, quite frankly, absurd on the face of it. I don't say this to denigrate the view - I know that many people take it. I'm just trying to illustrate how unsupported I think it is.

As far as the emergent properties are concerned, you have a right to pursue them to the degree you make contract for them.
Sorry, I'm not sure what "to the degree you make contract for them" means in this context. Could you expand?

These are some of the core human issues that regardless of any legal fiction to suppress them, they will express themselves anyway.
Of course. But does the desire for (say) sex make it a right? How about the desire to live? What does it even mean to say that I have a right to life while I'm being chased by a bear? What does it mean to say that I have a right to eat if I'm stranded in the Sahara?

I think that's, at bottom, my problem with rights. Unless they are actually explicitly granted/ensured by some governing body, I don't think that expressing them means anything more than "I think I/you should be able to...".

Perhaps I should put it to you. What is the difference between these two statements:

- I believe that every person should be free to act as they will without harming another

- Every person has the right to be free to act as they will without harming another
 

Algor

Well-known member
I find that point of view completely unsupported and, quite frankly, absurd on the face of it. I don't say this to denigrate the view - I know that many people take it. I'm just trying to illustrate how unsupported I think it is.


Sorry, I'm not sure what "to the degree you make contract for them" means in this context. Could you expand?


Of course. But does the desire for (say) sex make it a right? How about the desire to live? What does it even mean to say that I have a right to life while I'm being chased by a bear? What does it mean to say that I have a right to eat if I'm stranded in the Sahara?

I think that's, at bottom, my problem with rights. Unless they are actually explicitly granted/ensured by some governing body, I don't think that expressing them means anything more than "I think I/you should be able to...".

Perhaps I should put it to you. What is the difference between these two statements:

- I believe that every person should be free to act as they will without harming another

- Every person has the right to be free to act as they will without harming another
Howabout "I believe that everybody has a moral obligation to.....?" Then flip that around and the recipient of a universal moral obligation has a right. e.g. "Everybody has an obligation to ensure transparent and responsive government" gets transformed into "Everyone has a right to vote". By institutionalizing the fulfillment of an obligation one enacts rights.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
SO where did you get your "idea" from??
It's an abstract concept that will naturaly occur to intelligent agents, along with the related concept of fairness. Much like the Law of Identity will naturaly occur to intelligent agents. They belong to a class of ideas that couldn't be any other way, also like numbers. It's almost as if these ideas are waiting in the ether for thinking minds to realise them.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Howabout "I believe that everybody has a moral obligation to.....?" Then flip that around and the recipient of a universal moral obligation has a right. e.g. "Everybody has an obligation to ensure transparent and responsive government" gets transformed into "Everyone has a right to vote". By institutionalizing the fulfillment of an obligation one enacts rights.
It's just the same. We're back to moral opinions, which are subjective. Who says that everybody has that obligation? What if someone else says that they don't have that obligation? What if someone else wants to limit it to exclude (say) people under a certain age and people in prison? Again, it's all subjective. The only 'concrete' way it can be turned into something is if the governing body enforces it. For example, in Australia, everybody (except for certain categories, like < 18 and those in prison) has a legal obligation to vote; it's mandatory, and you can be fined/jailed for not doing it. But whether "an obligation to ensure transparent and responsive government" translates into "an obligation to vote" is another question entirely.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
It's an abstract concept that will naturaly occur to intelligent agents, along with the related concept of fairness. Much like the Law of Identity will naturaly occur to intelligent agents. They belong to a class of ideas that couldn't be any other way, also like numbers. It's almost as if these ideas are waiting in the ether for thinking minds to realise them.
So nothing, then. Basically, if you find it Pleasant, it's "right", and if it's Unpleasant, it's "Wrong".
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
You can't love a person and torture them.
I think you could if you knew it were the right thing to do, and you loved moral virtue more than making people happy.
I'm positive you're saying this without trying to envision being in a situation where it would be reasonable to torture someone you love. I'm positive that if you're forced to choose between a person you love, and a moral virtue which says it's good to torture that same person =-if you choose the virtue, you don't actually love the person.

What if you had a being that you (theoretically somehow) knew was pure hate and would never change. This being of pure hate has only one desire: to cause suffering to the maximum amount of other beings it ever possibly couldl.

Would you sacrifice yourself for this being? Would you feel guilty harming this being? Would you feel morally obligated to give this being everything it demands to make it itself happy?
In order:
1) No
2) I don't have enough information to say
3) No

You see, underneath all this "love" talk is really just selfishness, pride and independence from any higher or ulterior standards.

Personal preference becomes ones "God" and one just acts on whatever subjectively "feels" right for the situation or moment. There is no ultimate virtue or accountibility in a system like that. It's just an ethical hodgepodge of untraced valuations, which in the end, will put the importance and value on something arbitrary and always other than the Being that created all things.
I'm sorry, but I'm not following you in this section of our exchange. Don't feel like you should go back and explain, because this is a conversation which took place a week ago :) I just wanted to reply, to let you know that I definitely considered what your POV was here...
 

Algor

Well-known member
It's just the same. We're back to moral opinions, which are subjective.
Are they?

Isn't this a bit like saying speech is subjective? It's a product of cognition and emotion, but why does that make it subjective?
I mean, babies bond to their mothers: that's a subjective experience but a biological event. A sense of right and wrong, fairness, honor, respect for authority, empathy...these are not quite emotions but moral intuitions that are quite universal amoung humans. The precise rules and applications vary quite a lot, but one could say that of the ability to ride a bike as well.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I'm positive you're saying this without trying to envision being in a situation where it would be reasonable to torture someone you love. I'm positive that if you're forced to choose between a person you love, and a moral virtue which says it's good to torture that same person =-if you choose the virtue, you don't actually love the person.
yeah, I don't get it either....
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Are they?

Isn't this a bit like saying speech is subjective? It's a product of cognition and emotion, but why does that make it subjective?
I mean, babies bond to their mothers: that's a subjective experience but a biological event. A sense of right and wrong, fairness, honor, respect for authority, empathy...these are not quite emotions but moral intuitions that are quite universal amoung humans. The precise rules and applications vary quite a lot, but one could say that of the ability to ride a bike as well.
I don't understand your point. Speech is subjective. Experiences we have are all subjective. The experience I have while riding a bike is subjective, as is yours.

Of course, there are some things that are objective. The laws of physics. Mathematics. But I see no reason at all to put either morality or rights into that class.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Can't seem to find myself declaring anything I'd call a a truth of the universe.....
It would be kinda hard to find a truth of the universe inside of atheism.

Which makes the electric skillets of the world a funny bunch.

They even think 'consensus' means truth.

Blind leading the blind discovering subjective opinion.
 
Top