Spirituality
07 Mar 10
12 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, not the "only thing". It's the basis of national morality, sometimes in combination with religion or other moral codes. It is what all nations have in common in a moral sense. Not the only thing nations have in common in any sense.
So if we find that the only thing that all nations have in common is that they call themselves 'nations' then that is 'natural rights' to you? What nonsense. Nations are not based on rights. It makes sense to call Christians 'Christian' because they presumably have some sort of belief about Christ in common. It does not make sense to use the term 'Natural ainly historically some nations have not granted any rights to certain groups of people.
There are other things too that nations have in common, like they are made up of people within certain land borders etc.
I challenge you to find one nation on this planet today that does not acknowledge the fundamental nature of natural rights.
"Granting rights" is absurd. You cannot choose not to grant someone the right to not be killed. You can only violate their right by killing them. You cannot take it away any more than you can make baby rape moral by legalizing it.
12 Mar 10
1 edit
Let's do the formal argument thing.
1. Raping babies is immoral.
2. This immorality can be described as "violating the baby's right to his own body".
3. If we do describe it thus, then "not granting the right" is equivalent to "making baby rape a moral act".
4. This is absurd.
OK. Which step do you disagree with?
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe way to test axioms is to accept them for the sake of argument and examine their logical implications. Show that one leads to dubious or absurd conclusions. Find the strengths and weaknesses of the system
[b]So , simply put , how are you able to say that my killing someone for fun is ACTUALLY wrong? You can say that in your opinion it is a "given" that it is wrong...
Yes.
...or even that many people would think that it is a "given" that it is wrong.
No. If I assert that there are moral absolutes, then popular endorsement of them is ir ...[text shortened]... one leads to dubious or absurd conclusions. Find the strengths and weaknesses of the system.[/b]
----------swiss-----------------
Does that mean that if killing people for fun works the it then becomes moral?
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo , you don't have the correct understanding. God IS morality. His nature is what defines right and wrong. His love and holiness are what existence itself is founded on. God's righteousness is the ultimate reality of all existence , beyond energy , matter , quantum physics , the lot.
knightmeister, I am still waiting for a response from you on how you feel belief in God resolves your dilemma.
Let us suppose God exists and has a list of morals which he either invented or came about by some other means.
Why should you follow those morals?
Why should you consider yourself 'right' or 'wrong' for following or not following those morals?
If I break this morality then I am breaking the very laws upon which existence is founded.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou may be right about the current nations, though I still don't get why you exclude past nations.
I challenge you to find one nation on this planet today that does not acknowledge the fundamental nature of natural rights.
I also find it absurd that you are essentially claiming that if one nation somewhere on the earth drops one of its 'natural rights' from its constitution then it instantaneously change 'natural rights' for the whole world.
"Granting rights" is absurd. You cannot choose not to grant someone the right to not be killed. You can only violate their right by killing them. You cannot take it away any more than you can make baby rape moral by legalizing it.
Just a moment ago you defined natural rights as being what is legalized world wide - in every single nation. Now you deny the legal connection. I am not sure anymore what you are saying.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterPlease restate the question.
The way to test axioms is to accept them for the sake of argument and examine their logical implications. Show that one leads to dubious or absurd conclusions. Find the strengths and weaknesses of the system
----------swiss-----------------
Does that mean that if killing people for fun works the it then becomes moral?
12 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNatural Rights is a way of codifying morality. Part of this theory is that such rights are inalienable; the government doesn't get to "cancel" them.
You may be right about the current nations, though I still don't get why you exclude past nations.
I also find it absurd that you are essentially claiming that if one nation somewhere on the earth drops one of its 'natural rights' from its constitution then it instantaneously change 'natural rights' for the whole world.
[b]"Granting rights" is absurd. ...[text shortened]... nation. Now you deny the legal connection. I am not sure anymore what you are saying.[/b]
If a nation acknowledges that people have fundamental/natural/inalienable/etc. rights which the law may not violate in it's constitution, then it accepts this method of codifying morality.
All current nations accept this method. Therefore, it is de facto the world moral code. It's how one nation formally criticises another for being immoral.
Other methods of codifying morality are just as valid, but they do not have the power of international law behind them.
In order to make a moral argument that is intended to change the law, we must use the official moral code. Saying "God gave us a commandment not to murder" is not going to be a legitimate argument for changing the law, because the law is based on natural rights.
The consensus international legal system is not based on Ten Commandments, or Utilitarianism, or any other codification of morality. It's based on Natural Rights.
If we're working within the Natural Rights codification of morality, you cannot "cancel" a right.
If we're working within Ten Commandments codificiation, you cannot "cancel" a Commandment.
If we're working within Hedonistic Utilitarianism, you cannot "cancel" the immorality of the suffering of the victim.
Choosing not to grant natural rights is equivalent to choosing to make that which is immoral, moral. It's a paradox. You cannot legislate baby rape into being a wholesome, moral act. It just can't be done by a government.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, it doesn't.
The way to test axioms is to accept them for the sake of argument and examine their logical implications. Show that one leads to dubious or absurd conclusions. Find the strengths and weaknesses of the system
----------swiss-----------------
Does that mean that if killing people for fun works the it then becomes moral?
1. Axiom to be considered: killing people for fun is moral.
2. People have a Right to Life.
3. Because of 2, killing people is immoral.
4. Killing people for fun cannot be both moral and immoral. This is a paradox.
5. If killing people for fun was moral, then psychopaths would be paragons of virtue.
6. This is clearly absurd.
That's how it works.
12 Mar 10
5 edits
To illustrate:
John is Dictator of Johntopia. In Johntopia, women have a right to their own body. Therefore, mutilating womens' faces is wrong. But John has a fetish for mutilated women. He makes a new law; women no longer have a right to their own body. Now he can mutilate them! They don't have that right any more, so mutilating them is no longer immoral!
The notion of "granting" (or, by implication, possibly NOT "granting" ) rights is clearly absurd.
12 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI also find it absurd that you are essentially claiming that if one nation somewhere on the earth drops one of its 'natural rights' from its constitution then it instantaneously change 'natural rights' for the whole world.
You may be right about the current nations, though I still don't get why you exclude past nations.
I also find it absurd that you are essentially claiming that if one nation somewhere on the earth drops one of its 'natural rights' from its constitution then it instantaneously change 'natural rights' for the whole world.
"Granting rights" is abs ...[text shortened]... gle nation. Now you deny the legal connection. I am not sure anymore what you are saying.
No, I am claiming that if one nation stops recognizing that there are fundamental rights, then the international community will disagree with them and heavily criticise them. We'd also have to find some other sort of argument for challenging the morality of the law in that nation if we want to change it from the inside without a revolution. That nation will be unable to participate in formal international morality discussions as they apply to law.
12 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitI'm just wondering how you think you can prove that killing people for fun is wrong. You must believe that some axioms are more valid than others , but you can only do that if you have an absolute axiom by which you can judge them.
Please restate the question.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe atheist can very well hold that "morality is not open to change via debate". She could also very well hold that the moral facts are simply the moral facts regardless of what anyone thinks
[b]It is also to say that this morality is not open to change via debate. With a real morality (that is like gravity for example) even if every human being that ever lived disagreed with it , it would still make no difference. Just like if every human believed that gravity was false it would not change gravity.
Thanks. For the most part, I thin ...[text shortened]... doesn't exist. I'll be happy to then show you how your demonstration is flawed.[/b]
--------------lemon---------------------
But you are still missing the point. It's not about what we hold to be true , it's about getting at the justification for that view and what its basis is. Anyone can hold any position on morality they like , but giving reasons for that position is different.
If you substitute the word "beauty" for the words moral/morality in your statement above it looks silly because beauty "facts" cannot be brute facts because they exist only as a matter of subjective opinion.
But if we say that moral facts are more than subjective opinion but are actually real facts that cannot be changed we are rooting morality in something other than our own subjective opinions.
At this very point morality then takes a leap out of the world or aesthetics and subjective opinion and into a wolrd more akin to maths or physics. For morality to be an unchangable fact is has to be an external phenomenon that does not belong to the world of the subjective or mere concepts.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat would make me "wrong" would simply be that I would be swimming against reality itself. A bit like a note that's out of tune.
And what is stopping you? What makes you 'wrong' for breaking these laws? On what basis can you claim to be 'right' for keeping them?
I would be living an illusion and be moving away from the source of life itself. Like a plant trying to grow on concrete.
