Science must not become criterion of good (2)VI...

Originally posted by ivanhoe
God does not kill (... murder), only humans do.

God is life, all life belongs to Him. If he takes back a life he doesn't kill or murder. If we humans kill a human being, then we take something which isn't ours.

Therefore God does not kill ( ... murder), only humans do.

From Marriam Webster:
Kill:
1 a: to deprive of life : cause the death of

If God exists then he kills. You can pretend that you have your own definition of the word, but unless you specified it as such before using it, we must assume you meant the word that I used which is the standard usage as given in the dictionary.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Let's examine human rights violations. America and England had legal slavery for many many years. China brutally repressed the Tiananmen square dissidents. When we label these incidents as violations, we recognize that human rights exist independent of the perspective of those in power. If human rights emanated from a sovereign authority, then these exam ...[text shortened]... abuse or murder their children, despite the fact that they brought the child into the world.

Let's examine human rights violations. America and England had legal slavery for many many years. China brutally repressed the Tiananmen square dissidents. When we label these incidents as violations, we recognize that human rights exist independent of the perspective of those in power. If human rights emanated from a sovereign authority, then these examples may possibly not be human rights violations at all, and we would have no real cause for complaint.

My moral intuitions tell me that such genocide is wrong. On consequentialist grounds, I also perceive such repressions as damaging, destructive to society and human progress. But I do not feel the need to postulate intrinsic human rights. I can recognise such political hegemony as immoral without any notion of human rights. In fact, sometimes a notion of intrinsic human rights can be subversive to moral good - if we purported that all humans have the instrinsic right to life then pre-emptive strikes such as that of the bombing of Hiroshima, or the invasion of Iraq, would perforce be immoral.

They need to explain why God alone gets this privilege, and they need to do better than, "He created us, so he can do with us as he wishes." Parents aren't allowed to abuse or murder their children, despite the fact that they brought the child into the world.

The analogy is ridiculous. The Christian will admit that parents cannot abuse or murder their children - precisely because there is a God who gave them life to begin with.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Let's examine human rights violations. America and England had legal slavery for many many years. China brutally repressed the Tiananmen square dissidents. When we label these incidents as violations, we recognize that human rights exist independent of the perspective of those in power. If human rights emanated from a sovereign authority, then these exam ...[text shortened]... murder their children - precisely because there is a God who gave them life to begin with.[/b]

My moral intuitions tell me that such genocide is wrong. On consequentialist grounds, I also perceive such repressions as damaging, destructive to society and human progress. But I do not feel the need to postulate intrinsic human rights. I can recognise such political hegemony as immoral without any notion of human rights.

You are coming very close, if not in fact postulating, such rights, even if you do not realize it, or will not acknowledge it. Without basic human rights, why should we care if certain acts are destructive to society and human progress? What makes society and progress worth protecting?

In fact, sometimes a notion of intrinsic human rights can be subversive to moral good - if we purported that all humans have the instrinsic right to life then pre-emptive strikes such as that of the bombing of Hiroshima, or the invasion of Iraq, would perforce be immoral.

Those acts were immoral.

The analogy is ridiculous. The Christian will admit that parents cannot abuse or murder their children - precisely because there is a God who gave them life to begin with.

You need to understand the concept of an analogy before you start dismissing them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
In fact, sometimes a notion of intrinsic human rights can be subversive to moral good - if we purported that all humans have the instrinsic right to life then pre-emptive strikes such as that of the bombing of Hiroshima, or the invasion of Iraq, would perforce be immoral.

Do you seriously think that either of those acts was morally good?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you seriously think that either of those acts was morally good?

John Stuart Mill might have made a case for bombing Hiroshima. Iraq's another kettle of fish.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
John Stuart Mill might have made a case for bombing Hiroshima. Iraq's another kettle of fish.

Not a morally sound case.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you seriously think that either of those acts was morally good?

No I do not. But I would not dismiss an argument for pre-emptive action just on the grounds of the "intrinsic human right."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[bYou are coming very close, if not in fact postulating, such rights, even if you do not realize it, or will not acknowledge it. Without basic human rights, why should we care if certain acts are destructive to society and human progress? What makes society and progress worth protecting?

In fact, sometimes a notion of intrinsic human rights can be sub ...[text shortened]... with.

You need to understand the concept of an analogy before you start dismissing them.[/b]

You are coming very close, if not in fact postulating, such rights, even if you do not realize it, or will not acknowledge it. Without basic human rights, why should we care if certain acts are destructive to society and human progress? What makes society and progress worth protecting?

No. I fiercely reject the idea of human rights, which tend to be a wishywashy populist concept and have no meaning. I regard the actions you cite as wrong because I am a sentimentalist. I feel that killing these people was wrong, but that does not mean that I believe they have an intrinsic right to live. I can imagine many situations in which I would not feel them being killed to be wrong.

If I want to justify my own moral convictions, I do not appeal to some vaguely interpreted right to life. I might invoke the idea of human or societal progress (which are not based on human rights, but generally self-interest; do this because of the following benefits we will get.)

Those acts [b]were immoral.[/b]

I agree. But even before we knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, you would have been perforce required to object to the war because of your stance on intrinsic human rights.

You need to understand the concept of an analogy before you start dismissing them.

I do understand the concept of an analogy: an isomorphic correlation demonstrated between two concepts to explain one or the other. However, your analogy is false because no correlation exists between the parents or God.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I agree. But even before we knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, you would have been perforce required to object to the war because of your stance on intrinsic human rights.

Some of us more sensible human beings never thought that Iraq had significant WMDs in the first place.
And no, I do not think he would have been forced to object to the war because of his stance on intrinsic human rights.

Originally posted by twhitehead
From Marriam Webster:
Kill:
1 a: to deprive of life : cause the death of

If God exists then he kills. You can pretend that you have your own definition of the word, but unless you specified it as such before using it, we must assume you meant the word that I used which is the standard usage as given in the dictionary.

If you insist on a fundamentalist way of interpreting things, then ... so be it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You are coming very close, if not in fact postulating, such rights, even if you do not realize it, or will not acknowledge it. Without basic human rights, why should we care if certain acts are destructive to society and human progress? What makes society and progress worth protecting?

No. I fiercely reject the idea of human rights, which tend to ...[text shortened]... other. However, your analogy is false because no correlation exists between the parents or God.[/b]

I can imagine many situations in which I would not feel them being killed to be wrong.

Name one.

If I want to justify my own moral convictions, I do not appeal to some vaguely interpreted right to life. I might invoke the idea of human or societal progress (which are not based on human rights, but generally self-interest; do this because of the following benefits we will get.)

Sounds Machiavellian.

However, your analogy is false because no correlation exists between the parents or God.

Are you saying that parents do not create life?

I agree. But even before we knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, you would have been perforce required to object to the war because of your stance on intrinsic human rights.

Even if I was required to object, so what?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]I can imagine many situations in which I would not feel them being killed to be wrong.

Name one.

If I want to justify my own moral convictions, I do not appeal to some vaguely interpreted right to life. I might invoke the idea of human or societal progress (which are not based on human rights, but generally self-interest; do this because ...[text shortened]... your stance on intrinsic human rights.

Even if I was required to object, so what?[/b]

Name one.

If Iraq had WMD, then Iraq.

Sounds Machiavellian.

Why?

Are you saying that parents do not create life?

No; however, a Christian would deny that the parents are the ultimate origin of that life. The parents would simply be a medium through which life is conveyed, which is why your analogy is false.

Even if I was required to object, so what?

What if they did have WMD and your country was threatened?


And you still have not explained what you mean by "intrinsic human rights." I should have said that three posts ago. I agree that human rights can exist in a legalistic culture, but to say they are "intrinsic" has no meaning to me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Some of us more sensible human beings never thought that Iraq had significant WMDs in the first place.
And no, I do not think he would have been forced to object to the war because of his stance on intrinsic human rights.

So in times of war, intrinsic human rights are no longer intrinsic?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Name one.

If Iraq had WMD, then Iraq.

Sounds Machiavellian.

Why?

Are you saying that parents do not create life?

No; however, a Christian would deny that the parents are the ultimate origin of that life. The parents would simply be a medium through which life is conveyed, which is why your analogy is false.

Even ...[text shortened]... s can exist in a legalistic culture, but to say they are "intrinsic" has no meaning to me.[/b]

If Iraq had WMD, then Iraq.

So you think it is justified for a country that admittedly possesses WMD itself [nuclear weapons] to invade another on the grounds that they might have WMD [although nothing as powerful as a nuke] and they might use them against said invading country?

Why?

In that the end justifies the means.

No; however, a Christian would deny that the parents are the ultimate origin of that life. The parents would simply be a medium through which life is conveyed, which is why your analogy is false.

My analogy doesn't depend in any way on what the ultimate origin of life is. It is obvious that most of humans have the ability to decide when we'll have children, and how many. Only the deliberately obtuse would argue that a parent does not create life.

What if they did have WMD and your country was threatened?

In that case, I'd advocate diplomacy to avoid an exchange of WMD attacks.

And you still have not explained what you mean by "intrinsic human rights." I should have said that three posts ago. I agree that human rights can exist in a legalistic culture, but to say they are "intrinsic" has no meaning to me.

Yes I did. If you need further help, please look up 'intrinsic' in the dictionary.