Another source of light pollution

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:58:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

*Of course* there are absolutes in this matter!

Wishful thinking. And IMO, highly dangerous thinking. Once you propose
absolutes, you allow people to claim that their choices are those
absolutes. It takes reason out of the equation. It is the fiction of
such absolutes that has resulted (and continues to result) in the
great harm religions usually cause.

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

No. But what I want doesn't enter into it.

No? Well then, if not, come and join us to make _sure_ that everyone
recognizes their obligation to obey the moral absolutes... and their
permission to intervene, by force, against anyone who doesn't.

I need have no concept of moral absolutes to argue for a moral system
that would define holocausts as bad.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:06:24 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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 rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to
appreciate that you have them; but you need not understand the
concept of rights them to have rights. After all, a newly born
infant, or comatose person, does not have the capacity to
understand much of anything - yet they have rights under our
(U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law
does).

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.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:19:56 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:56:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L
Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:49:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

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.

No, the law *caused* them to have fewer legal rights.

Agreed. Because rights are ultimately defined by laws.

So, when you said that just because the law defined certain rights,
they weren't rights in your opinion, but now, you agree that rights
are defined by laws.

I didn't say that they weren't rights in my opinion.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:18:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

I make it clear how I'm using words.

When you get called out on it, yes.

From the very first post, I was explicit in pointing out that I was
describing my usage.

This usage is not different
from anyone else.

Then why did you explain how it was different?

Because there are always ignorant people such as yourself who have
never learned that many words have different meanings.

It's a perfectly common usage within moral
philosophy.

And it's in conflict with other common usages, whether you're too
****ing stupid to accept it or not.

Why isn't it the "other common usages" that are in conflict with the
usage of philosophers?

It is a sign of the dogmatic and poorly informed when complaining
about how a word is used is the only argument they are capable of.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:19:56 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:56:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L
Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:49:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

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.

No, the law *caused* them to have fewer legal rights.

Agreed. Because rights are ultimately defined by laws.

So, when you said that just because the law defined certain
rights, they weren't rights in your opinion, but now, you agree
that rights are defined by laws.

I didn't say that they weren't rights in my opinion.

Yes. You did.

Maybe you should drink less while posting to Usenet. A *lot* less.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:18:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

I make it clear how I'm using words.

When you get called out on it, yes.

From the very first post, I was explicit in pointing out that I
was describing my usage.

After you got called out on it.

This usage is not different
from anyone else.

Then why did you explain how it was different?

Because there are always ignorant people such as yourself who
have never learned that many words have different meanings.

And idiots make up more all the time.

It's a perfectly common usage within moral
philosophy.

And it's in conflict with other common usages, whether you're
too ****ing stupid to accept it or not.

Why isn't it the "other common usages" that are in conflict with
the usage of philosophers?

Philosophers, like you, should drink less while posting to Usenet.
A *lot* less.

It is a sign of the dogmatic and poorly informed when
complaining about how a word is used is the only argument they
are capable of.

Indeed, that describes you quite accurately.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:39:33 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

I didn't say that they weren't rights in my opinion.

Yes. You did.

Not much I can do if your reading comprehension can't keep up with a
discussion of a non-trivial nature.

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 1:56:03 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:56:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:24:58 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:49:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

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.

No, the law *caused* them to have fewer legal rights.

Agreed. Because rights are ultimately defined by laws.

It did not
affect their human rights...

It defined their human rights.

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.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 1:58:19 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I need have no concept of moral absolutes to argue for a moral system
that would define holocausts as bad.

You may have noticed that I was talking slightly with tongue in
cheek, to show that there was another side to the argument. Of
course argument by intimidation isn't valid.

However, while perhaps one could come up with some complicated
philosophical or evolutionary rationale for saying that the
Holocaust was, oh, suboptimal or something...

to most people, the notion of moral absolutes, existing
irrevocably and independently of human wishes or fashions, is
easily understandable. And while no empirical guide to exactly
what those rights are may exist, a whole bunch of them seem to be
sufficiently obvious to obtain consensus.

Of course, the danger is: the concept of moral absolutes can be
misused to get people thinking they're justified in making war on
other societies to impose the customs of their own culture or the
beliefs of their own religion.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 1:58:19 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
And IMO, highly dangerous thinking. Once you propose
absolutes, you allow people to claim that their choices are those
absolutes. It takes reason out of the equation. It is the fiction of
such absolutes that has resulted (and continues to result) in the
great harm religions usually cause.

Ah, you have addressed the specific point I thought I'd mention.

However, religion, by its very nature, posits the existence of
God, and so it will put forward moral absolutes even in the
absence of secular ethical philosophers who propose natural law
theory.

So it fails one of the tests for dangerous thinking; it lacks the
power to make things worse.

Religion is - one of the forces in this world that discourage
people from lying, cheating, and stealing, and it is a force that
encourages people to make charitable contributions, and so on.

If non-religious thinking goes to the extreme that you advocate of
being different from religious thinking, then it has the problem
that it will fail to provide moral guidance in a form that is
understandable to ordinary people.

The "American civil religion", or secular belief in the democratic
principles of the Declaration of Independence and so on as having
inherent absolute moral value, is at least understandable and
emotionally appealing. That our innate sense of fairness and
justice reflects something as absolute as mathematics - may or may
not be true, but it seems the best way for us to understand it at
this time.

John Savard