Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 May '11 12:58
    Okay, so I'm watching the news last night and the stories of so many people celebrating the death of this arch murderer, the one question that popped into my mind was" What made UBL a "bad" person? Surely he believed that his methods were necessary to stand up to the imperialist western behemoth and to defend his religion. Why do we blame him? Because we disagree with his conclusions? It has to be more than that.

    I think the only logical answer is that we have to believe that there are certain natural responsibilities that we're all born with; an inherent moral compass. Targeting innocent civilians has to go against our inherent moral compass. Otherwise, how can one blame UBL for his actions?

    Once we believe in natural responsibilities, isn't it only a baby step to take it from there to natural rights?

    Now, of course, we don't have to agree on the extent of these natural rights, but how can they not exist? If you have a natural responsibility not to kill me isn't that essentially the same thing as saying that I have a natural right to life?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    02 May '11 16:06
    Good post. I have nothing to add but I'm out of recs.
  3. 02 May '11 16:15 / 1 edit
    He was our enemy. He declared war on us, so we killed him. There is no natural rights, there is only war.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 May '11 16:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    He was our enemy. He declared war on us, so we killed him. There is no natural rights, there is only war.
    So you're saying that we're not morally superior to him?
  5. 02 May '11 16:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    Okay, so I'm watching the news last night and the stories of so many people celebrating the death of this arch murderer, the one question that popped into my mind was" What made UBL a "bad" person? Surely he believed that his methods were necessary to stand up to the imperialist western behemoth and to defend his religion. Why do we blame him? Because we disagr ...[text shortened]... me isn't that essentially the same thing as saying that I have a natural right to life?
    Im surprised by the persistence of this metaphysical fantasy among american posters, I supposed it is a phenomenon closely associated with the cult of the founding fathers and their statements about inalianable rights.

    Truth be told, most americans have an intense hatred of Osama because the media has consistently portrayed him as the evil mastermind of worldwide terrorism, and a man of almost supernatural evil. The media thrives on the enthusiastic vilification of america's enemies, and its only natural that this would distort the views of the average american, osama is after all a simple human being and not satan reincarnated, and the same goes for Stalin, Castro, and other figures who have been vilified by the american media throughout history.

    There is certainly something of a moral compass inherent to human beings, but once again, there is no reason to extrapolate from this vague sense of right and wrong that there are moral absolutes or that there are rights which exist independently from being written down in the law and enforced by the government. There is no such thing as a natural responsibility, nature grants no such thing to the living creatures which roam the earth, all responsibilities are artificial and arise out of the need for a civilized and working society.

    If you have a natural responsibility not to kill me isn't that essentially the same thing as saying that I have a natural right to life?

    The premise of "natural responsibility" is already highly dubious, and by postulating it as truth you are presenting the forum with a deliberately loaded question.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 May '11 16:34
    Originally posted by Eladar
    He was our enemy. He declared war on us, so we killed him. There is no natural rights, there is only war.
    Even in war, rules protecting the natural rights of Man are widely applied and enforced. Generals Keitel and Jodl (among others) were reminded (they knew it, of course) of this at the gallows in Nuremberg.
  7. 02 May '11 16:35
    Originally posted by sh76
    So you're saying that we're not morally superior to him?
    Of course I think we are. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims who would disagree.

    I'm saying there is no such thing as an absolute morality short of God. All we can do is give our opinions, but that's just an opinion.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 May '11 16:36
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Im surprised by the persistence of this metaphysical fantasy among american posters, I supposed it is a phenomenon closely associated with the cult of the founding fathers and their statements about inalianable rights.

    Truth be told, most americans have an intense hatred of Osama because the media has consistently portrayed him as the evil mastermin ...[text shortened]... by postulating it as truth you are presenting the forum with a deliberately loaded question.
    Castro is a red herring, but I see nothing wrong with portraying Stalin and bin Laden as profoundly evil people. I don't see what this has to do with the media. The media doesn't vilify Stalin. The history books do. Bin Laden has portrayed himself as a terrorist mastermind in his own words. He doesn't need any help from the media in that regard.
  9. 02 May '11 16:36
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Even in war, rules protecting the natural rights of Man are widely applied and enforced. Generals Keitel and Jodl (among others) were reminded (they knew it, of course) of this at the gallows in Nuremberg.
    You can only apply and enforce your views of natural rights if you win the war.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 May '11 16:38
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You can only apply and enforce your views of natural rights if you win the war.
    Enforceability has nothing to do with whether the rights exist.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 May '11 16:42
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You can only apply and enforce your views of natural rights if you win the war.
    In addition to what sh76 said (which I totally agree with), there is the fact that these Generals knew the acts they were accused of were wrong and either: A) Denied doing them or B) Argued they were "coerced" into doing them.
  12. 02 May '11 16:50
    Originally posted by sh76
    Enforceability has nothing to do with whether the rights exist.
    If rights were natural, then they wouldn't need to be enforced. They'd just happen naturally.

    No such thing as inherent natural rights. There are only rights that your society gives you.
  13. 02 May '11 16:57
    Originally posted by sh76
    Castro is a red herring, but I see nothing wrong with portraying Stalin and bin Laden as profoundly evil people. I don't see what this has to do with the media. The media doesn't vilify Stalin. The history books do. Bin Laden has portrayed himself as a terrorist mastermind in his own words. He doesn't need any help from the media in that regard.
    You seemed surprised by the number of americans celebrating bin laden's death, and you asked why the american people blamed him for the attacks, and the simple answer is the media. Bin laden has been portrayed as the figurehead of worldwide terrorism, and that is why his death is being celebrated.

    Still, your post is very economical in any justification for its fanciful claims about natural rights, it presumes the existence of "natural responsibilities" and it develops from there, finally concluding in a loaded question.
  14. 02 May '11 17:03
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Of course I think we are. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims who would disagree.

    I'm saying there is no such thing as an absolute morality short of God. All we can do is give our opinions, but that's just an opinion.
    jesus.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 May '11 17:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If rights were natural, then they wouldn't need to be enforced. They'd just happen naturally.

    No such thing as inherent natural rights. There are only rights that your society gives you.
    They do happen naturally and most people adhere to them naturally. But there will always be some level of deviance in any society; people are intelligent apes, not intelligent bees.

    A "right" that someone must give you cannot possibly be a right.