On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:49:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:09:15 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I'm not sure what that means. But you also said that rights "just
are", which is patently false.

It's true that you can't point a rights-o-meter at a human being and
detect his or her human rights.

But I think that's taking empiricism a tad too far.

People say that it's a shame that the United States allowed black
people to be hauled in from Africa and then bought and sold like
horses.

But yet the society at the time authorized the practice with its
laws.

Of course. Because these people had fewer rights, which was reflected
by the law.

To say that human beings have rights is another way of saying that
because human beings have feelings, and have a certain level of
ability to think, it matters how you treat them.

No, I don't think those two things are the same thing at all.


And it doesn't
matter, as far as the rightness and wrongness of this, how many
others gather together and try to make up rules that say
otherwise.

Yes, it does. "Right" and "wrong" are human inventions as well. What
is right in one society may be wrong in another. There are no
absolutes here.

Majority vote doesn't decide what is just; but it is a way to
attempt to find out what is just, as it is more likely for a
majority to want what is fair to all than it is for one autocrat
to want what is fair to all. That is the reason for democracy.

What is "just" is also defined by humans. The idea that all people
should be treated equally is a rather new concept, rarely found in
human history. Indeed, it may prove to be unworkable.

If one were to hypothesize an all-loving all-wise God, then of
course right and wrong would be what He commends versus what He
abominates.

Even that is arguable. I don't think an all-wise god would define
right and wrong, but would allow its creations to develop their own
moral codes and allow them to develop and improve over time. Failure
to meet its ideals of a perfect morality would not equate to "wrong"
for its creations.