| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2008 03:06:45 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The idea that any ancient textbook is a prerequisite for morality baffles me. |
Of course!!! We need to send this gentleman a copy of....
Kama Sutra
;-) |
Send me a copy of that book. I am a big fan of it ;)
:D
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 15:07:45. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 03:20:36 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mchalmers:
Hey, I think that people should be free to believe or not believe in whatever they choose. But I sure as hell don't think that people should be allowed to deny others basic human rights due to those beliefs!
To think otherwise is just absurd. |
Easier said than done. Who gets together and decides what "basic human rights" are and then who decides who qualifies for these human rights (women?, children?, fetuses? embryos? ) |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 03:34:14 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who gets together and decides what "basic human rights" are and then who decides who qualifies for these human rights (women?, children?, fetuses? embryos? ) |
Humans. From the relevant Wiki on human rights-
"Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere.
For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.
Relativistic arguments tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also don't account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.
Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international community's adherence to this principle: 'The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.' "
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 03:50:57 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who gets together and decides what "basic human rights" are and then who decides who qualifies for these human rights (women?, children?, fetuses? embryos? ) |
Humans. From the relevant Wiki on human rights-
|
I'm just pointing out it's not that simple. Clearly an embryo is "human" (in the scientific mode), but it is not necessarily clear whether it is a "person" (in the philosophical mode). It is clear, at least, that our own society is quite split on whether an embryo qualifies for basic human rights. Nobody, however, is arguing that an embryo is not human.
Also, what happens when two basic human rights clash? Is the right to religious expression a basic human right? What happens when a Jehovah's Witness declines to give their hemophiliac son a blood transfusion?
I'm not arguing "our" argument at this time Shannon (that is, absolute vs. relative morality), but I'm just pointing out that even something as seemingly obvious as basic human rights is strongly shaded by whatever society you grew up in. So why is our society the final arbiter of that justice?
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 15:51:44. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:20:07 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why is our society the final arbiter of that justice? |
It's not. "...the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi."
International agreements like this deal with the basic human rights of people, and few people will admit that their loving and just deity of choice would deny those. Whether or not an embryo qualifies as a person is a matter of considerable debate (beyond the scope of this thread), but consider that a hair, stem cell or cadaver can all be human, yet not subject to human rights. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:28:13 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Send me a copy of that book. I am a big fan of it ;) |
Sorry...My strict moral code developed 41 years ago prevents me from maintaining any copies in my household. You might try the library?...;-)
::gasp::...my Panning score just dropped...
Okay! Which one of you bewitched it?!!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:28:58 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is clear, at least, that our own society is quite split on whether an embryo qualifies for basic human rights. Nobody, however, is arguing that an embryo is not human.
|
Well, if nobody is arguing that it isn't human, then it should qualify for basic human rights.
So - people are certainly arguing that embryo's aren't human. They are potential humans - but then so is a sperm and an egg. But by that token, the atoms in a carrot are also potential humans, assuming they one day get eaten.
it's the 'when does life begin' debate that is really about 'when does something qualify as a human entity in its own right'
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:29:30 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why is our society the final arbiter of that justice? |
It's not. "...the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi."
International agreements like this deal with the basic human rights of people, and few people will admit that their loving and just deity of choice would deny those. Whether or not an embryo qualifies as a person is a matter of considerable debate (beyond the scope of this thread), but consider that a hair, stem cell or cadaver can all be human, yet not subject to human rights. |
I guess I'd bring up the following points:
1) I am a human, but I didn't appoint any of these people as someone to speak as an authority on human rights. What gives? And what if I disagree? (Frankly I don't disagree, but what if someone did because such people do exist?)
2) So we all agree that granting an embryo personhood is controvertial. Why can't there be similar controversy to, for example, not granting women the same scope of rights as men? Certainly I would disagree with that, but there are likely a billion people on the earth who would say that's a reasonable thing to do. Who granted this group the authority to say those billion people are wrong?
Ah, the morass of relativism. You gotta love it. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:32:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is clear, at least, that our own society is quite split on whether an embryo qualifies for basic human rights. Nobody, however, is arguing that an embryo is not human.
|
Well, if nobody is arguing that it isn't human, then it should qualify for basic human rights.
So - people are certainly arguing that embryo's aren't human. They are potential humans - but then so is a sperm and an egg. But by that token, the atoms in a carrot are also potential humans, assuming they one day get eaten.
it's the 'when does life begin' debate that is really about 'when does something qualify as a human entity in its own right' |
Gordon I think you are mixing up the idea of "human" and "person". One is scintific. We define humans in a certain way involving DNA. In this way we know what is human and what is, say, chimp. One is philosophical. Wiki says this about "person": The classical definition of a person is "A human being regarded as an individual."[1] In modern usage, the term "person" is subject to dispute and re-interpretation based on alternate definitions. This is especially so for uses that are not necessarily synonymous with the classical definition of human or human being.
So I would disagree to say the abortion debate is completely about "personhood" and nothing about "humaness". |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:39:03 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I would disagree to say the abortion debate is completely about "personhood" and nothing about "humaness". |
fair enough.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:42:19 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Likewise, witchcraft convictions and death by stoning were found right here in America not so long ago.
|
250 to 300 years *IS* long ago. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:50:00 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Likewise, witchcraft convictions and death by stoning were found right here in America not so long ago.
|
250 to 300 years *IS* long ago. |
Opps I keep forgeting that the web is a scary place...
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 17:17:23. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 04:50:02 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certainly I would disagree with that, but there are likely a billion people on the earth who would say that's a reasonable thing to do. Who granted this group the authority to say those billion people are wrong?
Ah, the morass of relativism. You gotta love it. |
See the thing is, that's the same as relgions though. Who granted the particular people that made up any given set of religious beliefs the authority to say you or I are wrong ? I know that you'll point to God as the actual 'authority', but then so do all the others, in one form or another, even if that God is a large lump of rock that spews out lava on occasion.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:14:11 PM · #39 |
As I read this article and am meandering through this thread, I can't help but wonder about the practical application that lead to the end result of this case. Generally, aren't judicial systems (independent of societal or religious perspective) structured to provide a practical application of reasonableness? Did that happen in this case?
If not...why not?
Also, the practical application of the topic of abortion...is that ultimately whose choice?
I suppose I'm off base here, but just some random thoughts...;-) |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:16:04 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) I am a human, but I didn't appoint any of these people as someone to speak as an authority on human rights. What gives? And what if I disagree?
2) So we all agree that granting an embryo personhood is controvertial. Why can't there be similar controversy to, for example, not granting women the same scope of rights as men? |
1) You didn't appoint biblical authors or whoever wrote the federal tax code either. Welcome to society.
2) There WAS (and still is) similar controversy... women's suffrage, the rights of minorities, etc. Fortunately, some people are capable of looking past cultural traditions and prejudices in favor of decency.
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 17:17:07. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:21:57 PM · #41 |
The people of the west are always trying to apply their thinking on others, regardless of those peoples's culture, religion and beliefs. Whether or not we, in the west, agree or disagree, it is not our right to intervene.
Throughout the ages we in the west have persecuted witches, druids and estate agents. We are fighting wars to bring western values to eastern lives, whether they want it or not. We keep interferring in things that are not our business.
Sure, these events are against what we believe in, but we do not have the right to determine other peoples's culture.
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 17:22:17. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:23:28 PM · #42 |
@Gordon. I'm trying to argue like a secularist here. It seems to me the "live and let live" policy would take effect. If the tribal bozos of such and such a nation want to kill their women for pretend crimes, then who am I to stop them? At least what moral authority do I have to stop them? Just because my own society considers it to be absurd?
@Shannon. I love your use of "decency". Wouldn't the Islamic fundamentalists consider it to be "decent" to cover women from head to toe? I guess I'll never understand why you think your own "decent" is better than theirs. See the "live and let live" policy I mentioned to Gordon.
At the end of the day I simply think you want to have your cake and eat it too. You claim some measure of moral authority in this situation ("...in favor of decency") but want nothing to do with whatever that moral authority may be based upon (or just simply deny it's not based on anything). |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:26:23 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Also, the practical application of the topic of abortion...is that ultimately whose choice? |
To the secularist it is ultimately the choice of society. If the society wants to side with the mother and grant her the right, then it is up to society to grant it. If the society wants to side with the unborn child, then so be it. Some, like ours, try to blend the two (with mixed results). |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:26:39 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At the end of the day I simply think you want to have your cake and eat it too. You claim some measure of moral authority in this situation ("...in favor of decency") but want nothing to do with whatever that moral authority may be based upon (or just simply deny it's not based on anything). |
Well, we are only human...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:30:32 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At the end of the day I simply think you want to have your cake and eat it too. You claim some measure of moral authority in this situation ("...in favor of decency") but want nothing to do with whatever that moral authority may be based upon (or just simply deny it's not based on anything). |
Well, we are only human... |
That last paragraph was aimed more at Shannon that you. ;) (Although I'd suspect you might be right behind him in line.) |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:31:21 PM · #46 |
One of the most troubling things about Islam, and organized religion, is that we let people get so wrapped up in it that it becomes political rather than just moral codes, ideals, and necessary rituals. In the case of Modern, (since 1900) Christianity, there is sure exploitation and unequal treatment of women but more is societal; places that have the strict Islamic code in place almost inevitably show serious problems with womens rights, right down to covering of the head and face. Thats really just devisive and backwards towards women. As if men want to blame all problems on the temptress that is a bareheaded woman.
Since we can't convince the world that religion and fanatical religion mixed with nationalism has been the cause of almost all wars and strife... or at least used to justify such actions,
Perhaps we can just convince the governments to be a bit more secular. But, good luck trying to convince Islamic places that do the stupid, ludicrous and savage act the likes of "blaming a victim of gang rape- giving her lashes" Jesus Christ thats barbaric and backward thinking. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:34:27 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bear in mind that these people are trying to adhere to strict moral codes set forth about 1500 years ago, when such practices were commonplace, and unfortunately they're not limited to the Middle East. |
At the risk of sending this straight to the Rant forum, wouldn't you, as an atheist, assume that these people's moral code (I'm talking about the tribal code and not the Saudi code which supposedly does not support this) would be as valid as any other? If they decide to adhere to it, who are we to tell them they shouldn't?
(I know we've had this discussion ad nauseum, but I seem to have caught you red-handed making a value judgement on another moral code other than your own.) |
DrAchoo, answering as a Christian, is it or has it ever been moral to put someone practicing witchcraft to death?
(I recalled your prior approval of situational genocide, so I became curious about this as well.)
|
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:37:19 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
@Gordon. I'm trying to argue like a secularist here. It seems to me the "live and let live" policy would take effect. If the tribal bozos of such and such a nation want to kill their women for pretend crimes, then who am I to stop them? At least what moral authority do I have to stop them? Just because my own society considers it to be absurd? |
This topic touches the topic domestic violence and in the most extreme case where a death is involved. In a practical sense, do not we all become a party to the violence (even if not actively involved and/or participating) simply because we globally allow it's presence of violence against women? |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 05:59:05 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
DrAchoo, answering as a Christian, is it or has it ever been moral to put someone practicing witchcraft to death?
(I recalled your prior approval of situational genocide, so I became curious about this as well.) |
If witchcraft exists, I would potentially think it could be punishable by death. Frankly I'm against the death penalty and I personally believe that Christ's example of "let whomever is without sin cast the first stone" was a strong reprimand of capital punishment. My interpretation would mean that if I met a Sorcerer, I could possibly allow him to live.
I have never personally witnessed witchcraft. I am a man steeped of science and it may prevent me from seeing such things. Does this mean there is no such thing? No. By believing in God, I would assume that would also entail believing in angels, demons, Satan and such spiritual beings. I suppose it possible for someone to be "in league" with these beings. I'm not sure how you'd prove it, but I guess it would be theoretically possible.
How's that for avoiding your Exodus 22 trap?
Message edited by author 2008-02-14 18:01:37. |
|
|
|
02/14/2008 06:01:12 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
@Gordon. I'm trying to argue like a secularist here. It seems to me the "live and let live" policy would take effect. If the tribal bozos of such and such a nation want to kill their women for pretend crimes, then who am I to stop them? At least what moral authority do I have to stop them? Just because my own society considers it to be absurd? |
This topic touches the topic domestic violence and in the most extreme case where a death is involved. In a practical sense, do not we all become a party to the violence (even if not actively involved and/or participating) simply because we globally allow it's presence of violence against women? |
To answer for myself, by all means yes. However, I believe in a morality that has truths which are on the same level as the truth of gravity. This means that actions can be called wrong and one person can appeal to this fundamental morality to argue their case. |
|
