|
| Thread: Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted May 20, 2013 01:40 PM |
|
|
I meant more like the laws in a country, they should apply to everyone regardless of age, gender, religion, skin colour, status...
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 01:54 PM |
|
|
|
I don't think it makes sense to let children vote - so how can there be equal rights regardless of age?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 02:00 PM |
|
|
Even for kids there are things like a class president. Why not let them vote for real when they're old enough to decide?
I wasn't any different at 18 than I was at 15, I could decide who to vote for just fine.
But no matter, of course I meant equal rights in matters where that is possible, I am aware children have special rights. That's an exception.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:32 PM |
|
|
1 & 2: Monopoly of force. At the end of the day, whatever structure is capable of exerting so much force that they manage to somewhat enforce laws, is the rule of law. What the rule of law is, is a entirely different matter.
3: The way I see it, if human rights are practically defined, then yes. HR is again based on the assumption of having a large enough monopoly of force to make the human rights recognized in the first place, and enforced in a second place.
a & b: Ideally a citizen would have the most rights, law enforcement and other such society classes few rights. That is, ignoring all the grey areas around immigration, for one does not simply discuss them in a sane way.
7. Depends for what purpose. Deforestation is a problem, yet overgrowth is also a problem. Another large problem is that if there is no real problems on the area of plants, there is really no purpose to make a regulation either.
For instance, Weed is protected against being grown in a few countries, countries like Brazil have laws against urban deforestation with minor exceptions, various plants are on endangered lists which may or may not be enforced depending on the local authorities etc.
So in practice, plants are already given a lot of "Protection" or "rights" by the law.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:37 PM |
|
|
|
If children get voting rights, there's a high risk parents will just drag them to the voting building (dunno what it's called in english) and use them as an extra vote for their party or candidate of choice.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here's a hint: I come up with the idea that all physically inept and mentally mediocre (or plain stupid) people should be sterilized or not allowed to reproduce with people who are physically and mentally superior to them so in the long run the humanity can produce more "high-quality humans". My name's not Hitler (or Plato). The idea is good because it can't be anything else because I say so. Should I start working towards its execution in, say, a neighborhood full of fat-ass morons by building a wall around it (and evacuating the "quality material") or just bombing the whole place?
Read up on the history of Eugenics, genetics, and the similar. If you are not applying Godwins here, you instead run into several practical problems:
-Modern science is blind to the area of genetics for anything but vague causes
-If the mentally mediocre is caused by environment, for what purpose does sterilization serve?
-If breeding of the fit leads to degeneration, then what?
Eugenics in itself is a good idea, but nobody will read up on it, and nobody will understand why its partially unfeasible for quite some time.
Quote:
I don't think it makes sense to let children vote - so how can there be equal rights regardless of age?
To be fair, letting children vote is in itself a non issue. You can go quite far down the age group before it becomes a problem, and even adults vote for shallow reasons like "guy got looks".
In essence, letting children vote might just put more focus on the problem of defacto powered political parties, and at the same time it does nothing.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 07:31 PM |
|
|
Those who do not believe in innate human rights, what do you think of this British politician's ideas? Is it ok to kill disabled children/adults? If so, what degree of impairment is the cutoff for getting the axe?
Clicky
Quote:
Councillor compares disabled children to deformed lambs who he thinks should be put down by 'being smashed against a wall'
Collin Brewer: 'Disabled children should only live after cost is evaluated'
Councillor caused fury in February by saying they should be 'put down'
Stood down from Cornwall Council but won re-election earlier this month
Says runt lambs are put down by farmers who 'smash them against wall'
A 68-year-old councillor who said disabled children should be ‘put down’ sparked further controversy today by comparing them to deformed lambs who need to be culled.
Cornwall Council veteran member Collin Brewer said children with disabilities should only be allowed to live after the cost has been evaluated - much like farmers who kill the runt of the litter.
Independent Mr Brewer stood down earlier this year after he claimed disabled children could be put to death to save taxpayers’ money.
He later apologised and quit the council - but then won back his seat in this month's local elections earlier this month.
But he now faces fresh calls to permanently step down after making more outrageous comments, saying ‘there may be a case’ for treating disabled children like deformed livestock.
He told the Disability News Service that runt lambs are often put down by farmers who deal with them by ‘smashing them against a wall’.
He said: ‘If they [farmers] have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it. They get rid of it. Bang.’
(Click on the link to continue reading the article)
____________
Revelation
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 07:55 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:03, 20 May 2013.
|
1. First, you need to divide rights between negative and positive rights. Negative rights oblige inaction such as "Don't kill innocents, don't steal, don't destroy property" etc. They are essentially all about freedom from constraint.
A government/state can use positive rights. Positive rights oblige action. Examples: government provides education, healthcare. These require some kind of funding, usually from taxes on property (income). Property taxation is legitimate if done without compulsion. This implies it must be possible for people to secede their citizenship. In that case, all obligations between an individual and government cease except for those relating to natural rights.
2. These are natural rights and have little to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration is filled with positive rights. Positive rights can not be universal for they are always relative and never absolute.
3a. Natural/negative rights are universal and absolute.
3b. Government-granted rights, positive rights, are not universal. They are decided upon by the citizens of a state through democracy. A constitution must protect the natural rights so that they are never breached.
4-7. Animals should have natural rights relative to their level of self-consciousness. Citizens in a state can vote for government to grant animals positive rights.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Those who do not believe in innate human rights, what do you think of this British politician's ideas? Is it ok to kill disabled children/adults? If so, what degree of impairment is the cutoff for getting the axe?
Clicky
Quote:
Councillor compares disabled children to deformed lambs who he thinks should be put down by 'being smashed against a wall'
Collin Brewer: 'Disabled children should only live after cost is evaluated'
Councillor caused fury in February by saying they should be 'put down'
Stood down from Cornwall Council but won re-election earlier this month
Says runt lambs are put down by farmers who 'smash them against wall'
A 68-year-old councillor who said disabled children should be ‘put down’ sparked further controversy today by comparing them to deformed lambs who need to be culled.
Cornwall Council veteran member Collin Brewer said children with disabilities should only be allowed to live after the cost has been evaluated - much like farmers who kill the runt of the litter.
Independent Mr Brewer stood down earlier this year after he claimed disabled children could be put to death to save taxpayers’ money.
He later apologised and quit the council - but then won back his seat in this month's local elections earlier this month.
But he now faces fresh calls to permanently step down after making more outrageous comments, saying ‘there may be a case’ for treating disabled children like deformed livestock.
He told the Disability News Service that runt lambs are often put down by farmers who deal with them by ‘smashing them against a wall’.
He said: ‘If they [farmers] have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it. They get rid of it. Bang.’
(Click on the link to continue reading the article)
Same problem, Elodin: Guy tries to enforce HIS idea of things onto everyone else, no matter what.
Anyway. I think this: if (speaker of) society is "suggesting" death for a specific person, and no one objects... well. (We are assuming a procedure that makes sure everyone has a public defender.)
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 11:01 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Same problem, Elodin: Guy tries to enforce HIS idea of things onto everyone else, no matter what.
No, he is not trying to force his ideas on anyone. He is saying that is what SHOULD happen in his opinion. He is not a high enough politician in Britain to make it happen.
If the British people reached a consensus that they are now going to kill the mentally and physically disabled and changed their laws, they have spoken their will and proclaimed who has and has not rights. So killing the disabled is now legal, the law of the land.
From what I understand of your position the people "make up" rights and tell the government to enforce those rights. So, in this hypothetical case no rights would be violated in killing the disabled. Is that the way you see it?
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 11:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
Same problem, Elodin: Guy tries to enforce HIS idea of things onto everyone else, no matter what.
No, he is not trying to force his ideas on anyone. He is saying that is what SHOULD happen in his opinion. He is not a high enough politician in Britain to make it happen.
If the British people reached a consensus that they are now going to kill the mentally and physically disabled and changed their laws, they have spoken their will and proclaimed who has and has not rights. So killing the disabled is now legal, the law of the land.
From what I understand of your position the people "make up" rights and tell the government to enforce those rights. So, in this hypothetical case no rights would be violated in killing the disabled. Is that the way you see it?
My position is, that the public has no business to make a general decision for every individual. Why would you make a law determining these cases? If someone wants to care ffor handicapped - what's the problem?
Whicch means - same problem, whether you like that or not: guy wants to force everyone to say yes or no. To hell with him.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 12:43 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:46, 21 May 2013.
|
Quote:
My position is, that the public has no business to make a general decision for every individual. Why would you make a law determining these cases? If someone wants to care ffor handicapped - what's the problem?
Whicch means - same problem, whether you like that or not: guy wants to force everyone to say yes or no. To hell with him.
No, the man has no power to force his viewpoints on the public, he is calling for a change in public policy.
What the man is trying to do is cut down on Britain's health care cost. He says that killing the disabled would bring down the health care costs. He is suggesting that for a part of the solution to the rising health care costs. He has no power to force the solution on Britain as he is a lower level politician. As you know, the public pays for the health care costs.
But my question is:
"IF the public comes to a consensus that it is ok to kill the disabled and the government passes laws saying all disabled people shall be killed are rights being violated when disabled people are killed, since the public did not grant disabled people the right to live, but instead said that disabled people must die.
I don't think I understand you stand on rights then. Could you state your position very clearly? I thought you stated the people make the rights and the government enforces the rights?
Quote:
My position is, that the public has no business to make a general decision for every individual.
What does that mean, if the people are the source of all rights, they can't make up whatever rights they want to? What is the basis of the rights they can make up and the ones they can't make up?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 01:17 AM |
|
|
Well that is one of the risks of nationalized healthcare. When you have the entire public with skin in the game and pooling out their money to keep the machine going, it's the next logical step to start questioning what does and doesn't deserve treatment. This means obese people and smokers and such, but the handicapped are also bound to be put into question by some of the world's colder minds. The minorities are inevitably the most vulnerable as they almost always are. The healthcare costs in GB related to alcohol will likely dodge the bullet because you have safety in numbers, but if you're a smoker then prepare to be singled out and targeted.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 01:44 AM |
|
|
I'll answer the questions in the opening post later, but I want to point out that "created by humans" and "objective" are not mutually exclusive. More broadly, there are many things that only exist because of minds: not only things like trivial personal preferences but also things like math, the rules of games, and any abstraction. This is how something can be created by humans but still be objective. Chess is created by humans, but if someone says "Knights move the same way as rooks", they are objectively wrong. Similarly, medicine (in the normal sense) is created by humans, but if someone says "Ibuprofen is not a pain reliever", they are objectively wrong. Morality is in the same category. If someone says "Enslaving innocent people is good", they are objectively wrong, as it is a statement similar to "In chess, knights move the same as rooks".
But if there were no beings capable of moral reasoning, there would be no morality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 02:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'll answer the questions in the opening post later, but I want to point out that "created by humans" and "objective" are not mutually exclusive. More broadly, there are many things that only exist because of minds: not only things like trivial personal preferences but also things like math, the rules of games, and any abstraction.
Sure, if someone says a knight moves like a bishop they are wrong because chess is a game with a certain set of rules for how the pieces move.
But I do not concur that man made rules about morality establish objective morality if that is what you are saying. Let's say Cuba writes, "The Havana Declaration of Human Rights" and define everyone under the age of 40 as non-persons and proclaims they have no rights under the law.
If a Cuban said that all humans worldwide below the age of 40 are non-persons and have no rights he would be correct according to the "Havana Declaration of Human Rights" but that does mean he is objectively correct. He is only correct according to the Havana Declaration of Human Rights.
But I could be misunderstanding what you mean.
I think that morality is objective and that general moral principles can be discerned by reason and intuition. But I don't think the moral principles would exist without God.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 03:27 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:37, 21 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Sure, if someone says a knight moves like a bishop they are wrong because chess is a game with a certain set of rules for how the pieces move.
But I do not concur that man made rules about morality establish objective morality if that is what you are saying. Let's say Cuba writes, "The Havana Declaration of Human Rights" and define everyone under the age of 40 as non-persons and proclaims they have no rights under the law.
If a Cuban said that all humans worldwide below the age of 40 are non-persons and have no rights he would be correct according to the "Havana Declaration of Human Rights" but that does mean he is objectively correct. He is only correct according to the Havana Declaration of Human Rights.
But I could be misunderstanding what you mean.
I think that morality is objective and that general moral principles can be discerned by reason and intuition. But I don't think the moral principles would exist without God.
Well, it's not as wishy-washy as you caricaturized it but what people's reason and intuition tell them changes over time. In your example, the guy suggests not to pay for the disabled and you use this example for trying to reach our conscience but you seem to be forgetting that until recently that WAS the norm and the law. I even remember a film, telling the story of a visionary in 18th century, suggesting to teach the mute (who were thought of as imbeciles back then) the sign language. The guy was immediately made fun of, ridiculed and people did it even by quoting the Bible: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God. Think how midgets or people with disfigure were used to entertain the public as a normal thing, think how crowds watched decapitations or hangings like a football game, with chanting and cheers. These are all morally wrong to us and by simple intuition.
You bring in (your) God but you again seem to be forgetting Christianity co-existed with slavery for like 18 centuries. The truth is our moral, reasoning and intuition change over time due to the infrastructure of society (Now, that's really Marx). And the religions adopt to that, every age interprets the scripts according to its own needs and if the gap between the foundation of the religion and the spirit of the time becomes totally incompatible, then they become dead religions, just like dead languages. I don't think Islam has many centuries ahead for instance, Christianity may survive a little longer since it harbors secular thought within its foundation. That flexibility is a great advantage.
What you must keep in mind is the evolution of values, just like biological evolution or evolution of language, don't happen overnight. Language evolves (remember the text I linked earlier and how different 8th century English was) but just because of that, if you say, hah, so there's no true language after all, I can make up anything I want, you'll be wrong. No one will be able to communicate with you, and in the case of morals, no one will agree with you.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 05:32 AM |
|
|
Slavery existed for so long in the Christian world because slave owners (most of them) couldn't care less if the Bible said anything about slavery.
In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men; however Masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.
Do you think these ideas from the NT are bad? If people respected what I wrote above, slavery wouldn't have been an evil thing at all.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 05:56 AM |
|
Edited by COrribus at 05:58, 21 May 2013.
|
As for the central question of the thread: no I don’t think human rights are innate (whatever that means) and no I don’t regard them as “things” that can be “given” or “awarded” by governments or any other authority. This is not to denigrate their importance. They are social ideals or principles that form the basis of laws (rather than the other way around – the latter are there to protect the former), ethics and, in many (but not all) cases, moral paradigms. I do regard them as fundamental for any successful, free and modern society. They are crucial for technological development.
@mvass
Quote:
If someone says "Enslaving innocent people is good", they are objectively wrong, as it is a statement similar to "In chess, knights move the same as rooks".
I wholly disagree with this statement as well as the poor analogy.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:06 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:36, 21 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Slavery existed for so long in the Christian world because slave owners (most of them) couldn't care less if the Bible said anything about slavery.
First of all, that only approves what I just said. Morals of a society are shaped not by some timeless code but historical conditions. And secondly, no, it is not like the Bible forbidding adultery but people doing it anyway, it is not forbidden, it is not forbidden because it is the norm.
Quote:
In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men; however Masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.
Do you think these ideas from the NT are bad? If people respected what I wrote above, slavery wouldn't have been an evil thing at all.
This only clarifies that according to the Bible slavery is legitimate labor. "Work for the Lord, not your master" is exactly the type of thing you'd say to a slave and so what if it tells the masters not to treat slaves bad? It's reasonable advice once you recognize it as legitimate.
And slave owners and slaves would be best buddies or brothers only if you live in same the world with Bugs Bunny.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:07 AM |
|
|
Yeah, who decides what is good and what is not? In chess there is no good and evil also.
I don't find slavery as described in the New Testament evil. But like you said, that scenario would never realistically happen.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
| |
|
|
