Another source of light pollution

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:56:33 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:32:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

However, a human right not to be killed unjustly

:-) That's the American version of the human right to not be killed
for **any** reason...

The strongest reason to not allow the justice system to execute
people is that courts sometimes make mistakes. Someone who has been
jailed innocently can be freed at given at least economic
compensation. But someone who has been executed innocently cannot be
brought back to life.

In that case, I'd ask you why you don't argue for banning motor vehicles
from the roads.

Just as cars are useful for hauling food quickly to stores, capital
punishment may be more effective in deterring more simple-minded people
from committing crimes than mere imprisonment.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 11:34:56 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I am looking on at this and shaking my head and especially in a day where
the Polish Government made it a criminal offence to say their authorities
were complicit in national socialist extermination.

Ah, yes, I saw that unfortunate news story as well.

John Savard

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Just calling them "rights" could imply that they also apply to
non-human such as animals.

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient entities as
having rights. You need to understand the concept of rights to have

However, you can get punished for torturing e.g. your dog. So some
non-sentinent but living entities do have some rights according to
law, even if those rights aren't human rights.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 04:28:42 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 11:34:56 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I am looking on at this and shaking my head and especially in a day where
the Polish Government made it a criminal offence to say their authorities
were complicit in national socialist extermination.

Ah, yes, I saw that unfortunate news story as well.

Man constantly seeks to confirm status. Nothing else gives him adequate hierarchy over the disposable animals and lower orders he so despises. Religion is the fine art of selecting others for an artificial hierarchy based entirely on the imaginary constructs of, and by, extremely deluded minds.

These days they have a pill for that sort of thing. But still the endless "fixing" of status goes on, from second to second, all down the aching millennia. In the complete absence of natural justice what other choice is there? Status is just another childish mind game for those without hope of any real change for the better. Where there is no escape from the prison of humanity's inhumanity to man, how can one even imagine freedom from status?

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:13:43 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).
I recognize them as legal obligations placed on people to protect
those unable to protect themselves. This could apply to animals, as

Can you give some examples of what you consider rights which have no
corresponding legal obligations? And if the law doesn't enforce those
rights, who will? God? A lynch mob near you? Anyone else - who?

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:59:52 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Which is to say, you choose to use words differently than anyone
else, and not admit it until called out on it.

I make it clear how I'm using words. This usage is not different
from
anyone else. It's a perfectly common usage within moral philosophy.

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy, with
no implementation in the real world? And if those rights are severely
violated, some philosopher might make a note about it in a notebook
but apart from that nothing happens?

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:26:49 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
The strongest reason to not allow the justice system to execute
people is that courts sometimes make mistakes. Someone who has
been
jailed innocently can be freed at given at least economic
compensation. But someone who has been executed innocently cannot
be
brought back to life.

In that case, I'd ask you why you don't argue for banning motor
vehicles
from the roads.

FYI: running over people by cars to kill them on purpose is illegal
and considered to be murder. Even without purpose it's usually
illegal - careless driving is punishable.

If you want to eliminate all traffic accidents it's not enough to ban
just motor vehicles. You must then also ban horses, camels and riding
any other animal. Trains, planes and boats must also be banned. Even
runners and bicycles must be banned because you can kill someone by
running or cycling into him. Perhaps slow walking could be allowed.

However there's a big difference between death by accident and
killing on purpose.


Just as cars are useful for hauling food quickly to stores, capital
punishment may be more effective in deterring more simple-minded
people
from committing crimes than mere imprisonment.

If you think it's OK to kill others for efficiency reasons, you are
entering a horrible path. The next step would be to kill people who
are hopelessly ill (like we do with snimals) because health care is
expensive. Then you could kill people who are not productive enough
in the society, or who strongly oppose the government etc, etc. I
think you agree that such a society would be horrible even if it
would be more efficient.

You completely disregarded the moral problem of having the state
execute innocent people due to mistakes by the courts. It's a moral
issue, not an efficiency issue.

Finally I repeat: there is a big difference between deaths by
accident and killing on purpose.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:57:18 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
No. Human rights and legal rights are two different things.

Otherwise, we would have no way of saying that slavery was wrong
then, no way of saying why it would be a bad idea to reintroduce
it now.

Today slavery is illegal, in all countries of the world. That's one
reason why it would be a bad idea to keep slaves.

But you do have a point: from where do we get the idea about how to
change the laws?

In science there is a similar problem: how do we decide what to
investigate scientifically? We don't have resources to investigate
everything.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:58:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
*Of course* there are absolutes in this matter!

Would _you_ want to be a victim of the next Holocaust?

Nobody would want to be the victim of course, but some people gamble
on being the culprit. Hitler did, with the argument "who remembers
the Armenian genocide today", some 20 years after that genocide. If
your absolutes had been present then, there would have been no
holocaust, and no Armenian genocide either for that matter.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:57:18 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

No. Human rights and legal rights are two different things.

Not really. If rights are not legally defended they don't exist. They
aren't rights, they're just claims.

Otherwise, we would have no way of saying that slavery was wrong
then, no way of saying why it would be a bad idea to reintroduce
it now.

Slavery isn't wrong in any universal way. In some societies it's been
morally good, essential for the survival of the society.

(I'm always amused in discussions about ethics when people bring up
slavery. It demonstrates the profound cultural bias people have on the
subject these days. A bias that would have not been understood at all
throughout most of history, in most cultures, where slavery was a
simple norm. It's not unlike people automatically bringing up Hitler
as the embodiment of evil.)