And yet all of them thought killing was right, which is what I was originally disputing.
Also, particularly with the Italian Mafias, blackmail and threatening people into doing their business was pretty common.
Advertisement
by Kowani » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:09 pm
by Callisdrun » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:10 pm
by Geneviev » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:51 pm
by Kowani » Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:31 pm
Geneviev wrote:Morality should be a universal constant but a lot of people ignore it and sometimes whole countries ignore it.
by Aggicificicerous » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:02 pm
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:As soon as you admit any concept of human rights, you admit the concept of an universal morality. Otherwise you would be led to conclude, that if slavery has economic benefits it should be allowed, which is false.
by A m e n r i a » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:07 pm
by Aleckandor » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:27 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote:Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:As soon as you admit any concept of human rights, you admit the concept of an universal morality. Otherwise you would be led to conclude, that if slavery has economic benefits it should be allowed, which is false.
I don't follow your reasoning. Human rights exist because humans thought about them; they are laws because humans codified them. There is no universality required.
by Aggicificicerous » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:53 pm
Aleckandor wrote:
Human "rights" exist insofar as humans thought about them, that much is true. As concepts, they also exist in the language of the law — and of course, that's also true.
But if you're saying that the idea is operating outside the purview of a universal morality, then the idea becomes devoid of any ultimately absolute and undeniably universal source of authority beyond a bunch of folks getting together and saying it's right 'just because we feel/think so'. Those aforementioned "rights" would then only be valuable enough to be proliferated and enforced as long as those who have power in a society hold (or at least profess to hold) them to be sacrosanct.
In short, these rights would just be fictional. But hey, fictions are not necessarily good or bad because they're fictional; as for rights, since there are people willing to uphold them and fight for them when they are threatened, the intensity at which these people do is the extent to which human rights can be said to "exist" under this view.
Aleckandor wrote:So if one says that human "rights" need not be something that is true in the universe (as opposed to being only true in human minds) for it to exist, what's actually happening is that they're really saying is that they'll think and act like these "rights" are real simply because they have the desire and capacity to think and act as such.
by Callisdrun » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:18 am
A m e n r i a wrote:Morality is real because it's the parameter used by the angels who stay by your side to determine whether you go to Heaven or the other place. God determines what's right and what's wrong through Islam.
by The New California Republic » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:04 am
by Kilobugya » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:09 am
by Moskovalkia » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:15 am
by Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:44 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:As soon as you admit any concept of human rights, you admit the concept of an universal morality. Otherwise you would be led to conclude, that if slavery has economic benefits it should be allowed, which is false.
I don't follow your reasoning. Human rights exist because humans thought about them; they are laws because humans codified them. There is no universality required.
by Page » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:53 am
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:
I don't follow your reasoning. Human rights exist because humans thought about them; they are laws because humans codified them. There is no universality required.
What you describe are not human rights as defined by the UN, for the rights you talk about are not inalienable. There is universality required for them to truly be inalienable.
by Aggicificicerous » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:39 am
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:
I don't follow your reasoning. Human rights exist because humans thought about them; they are laws because humans codified them. There is no universality required.
What you describe are not human rights as defined by the UN, for the rights you talk about are not inalienable. There is universality required for them to truly be inalienable.
by The New California Republic » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:15 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:What you describe are not human rights as defined by the UN, for the rights you talk about are not inalienable. There is universality required for them to truly be inalienable.
To add to what Page just said, the UN is a little under 75 years old. Are you saying those inalienable, universal rights only came into existence with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948?
by Aggicificicerous » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:28 am
by New Excalibus » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:32 am
by Ethel mermania » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:16 am
by Page » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:24 am
by Ethel mermania » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:24 am
by Hammer Britannia » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:27 am
by Hammer Britannia » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:31 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Celritannia, East Leaf Republic, Emotional Support Crocodile, Epic bannana, Google [Bot], ML Library, Omnicontrol, Shrillland, Stratonesia, The Xenopolis Confederation, Tungstan
Advertisement