|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
Chris L Peterson:
Rights are whatever a society defines them to be. That's why I said "It's a civilization thing." -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:28:48 -0500, Davoud wrote:
Chris L Peterson: Rights are whatever a society defines them to be. That's why I said "It's a civilization thing." I'm not sure what that means. But you also said that rights "just are", which is patently false. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 06:28:50 UTC+1, Davoud wrote:
Chris L Peterson: Rights are whatever a society defines them to be. That's why I said "It's a civilization thing." "Civilization" is a term without clear definition and has yet to be [remotely] achieved by any culture or species [knowingly] living on this planet. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:46:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Schlyter wrote: Human rights are rights granted to all humans. For instance the right to not be killed. Tell that to the grizzly bear you surprise on a hike. Tell that to the residents of certain villages in the middle east. Just exactly who is it who grants this 'right not to be killed'? Human rights are not granted. Human rights are properties of all humans, just as electric charge, angular momentum, and mass are properties of an electron. However, a human right not to be killed unjustly is not a guarantee that one will not be killed unjustly. It just means that if one _is_ killed unjustly without compelling reason by a being that is a moral agent, that being has done something that is _wrong_. Which makes it licit to use force against that being, either to prevent a wrong action or to deter other wrong actions by avenging a past wrong, or to compel the being to undergo rehabilitative therapy and so on. It is because of human rights being inherent in humans that it is meaningful to say that Negro slavery and the Holocaust, for example, were wrong, despite both being authorized by the governments in power at the time. Human rights mean that governments, while they define the laws we must obey to avoid being punished by the agents of those governments, do not define right and wrong; right and wrong are not defined or altered in the least by governments or any other human creation, but are as unalterable as the laws of mathematics and physics. John Savard |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 4:59:12 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Human rights are human inventions, that do not exist separate from our culture. They may be claimed by those who are strong enough to defend them, they may be granted by rulers. But there are no naturally occurring rights. Not a one. Rights are whatever a society defines them to be. But then how is it we can criticize a society for being perverse, because it mistreats some of the people within its reach? Basically, rights are what the ideal society would define them to be. What other societies define are an imperfect reflection of what rights are. John Savard |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:21:36 PM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
"Civilization" is a term without clear definition and has yet to be [remotely] achieved by any culture or species [knowingly] living on this planet. No, it's a clear technical term. And many cultures on this planet have a written language and live in cities. Of course, it has _other_ meanings. The meaning you seem to be using... I'd say that while none of our cultures are absolutely perfect, many of them are decent and fair in their behavior under normal circumstances which permit it. No society is so strong it doesn't face exigencies of survival, but it's hardly fair to condemn people for not wanting to fall to the levels of unfreedom they see around them in other societies. John Savard |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
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. 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. 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. Their numbers are merely a practical obstacle for those who wish to set matters straight. 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. 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. As it is possible to hypothesize a God without God actually existing - surely the world's contending sects are evidence of that - it's not as if right and wrong are so vague as not to be susceptible of definition. John Savard |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:35:29 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote: On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 4:59:12 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote: Human rights are human inventions, that do not exist separate from our culture. They may be claimed by those who are strong enough to defend them, they may be granted by rulers. But there are no naturally occurring rights. Not a one. Rights are whatever a society defines them to be. But then how is it we can criticize a society for being perverse, because it mistreats some of the people within its reach? I do not universally criticize societies for doing this. Basically, rights are what the ideal society would define them to be. What other societies define are an imperfect reflection of what rights are. I disagree, given that there is no "ideal society". The best human society in terms of our success as a species may turn out to be a single brilliant autocrat who simply kills every other person who fails to fulfill his given role well enough. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Another source of light pollution
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 20:27:05 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I disagree, given that there is no "ideal society". The best human society in terms of our success as a species may turn out to be a single brilliant autocrat who simply kills every other person who fails to fulfill his given role well enough. Whoops! Doesn't this come down to ample reward for effort? Slaves would argue strongly against your role fulfillment aspect. The broken tail light, capital punishment syndrome is considered harsh. Crooked oil princes imagine themselves too worthy to need any moral role. That belief is constantly reinforced by the world's oil buying nations. We have not yet descended to true comic book, black and white morality. Yet our fiction is still fixated on appeals to imaginary gods and super-beings. All in a desperate bid to provide the natural justice not available within any existing society. The irony being that those who would guard our morals and roles are usually the absolute extremists of human corruption. Meanwhile, Lord, please mark me down for double rations of Soylent, easy over, when you finally get to be in charge. ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The very first presidential effort to ever address Light Pollution: AlGore.org Statement on Light Pollution | Ed[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 20 | April 25th 07 12:30 PM |
light pollution | g | Misc | 1 | October 26th 04 04:24 PM |
Light pollution | Steve | UK Astronomy | 7 | June 12th 04 08:42 PM |
Light Pollution | Philip | Amateur Astronomy | 19 | August 11th 03 10:48 PM |