K
Kitty Sinatra
Are you saying that because you're a native, or because you're tech support?
- Status
What if I am both?
What if I am both?[/QUOTE]
You're... native tech support?
What if I am both?[/QUOTE]
You're... native tech support?[/QUOTE]
Good heavens no! I ain't no nothing 'bout these "spirit boxes."
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to looking wise and serene.
Where did I put my headdress?
----------
(serious face)
Usually I have an opinion of the Catholic church as my heritage and the history of it are intertwined, but it's not relevant to the topic at hand.
Everybody here knows that the idea of "Human Rights" is just as much of a belief as any of the beliefs in religions that you guys are trashing, don't you? You keep claiming that "human rights" have a higher basis than the beliefs which conflict with them.
But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?
But who sets what they are? At best, consensus. At worst... anybody? Opinion? So really, they're no better a basis than any holy book out there. Just opinion written down somewhere that "enough" people agree with. Sure many religions also agree with a lot of them, but not all, so when there's a conflict, why is somebody touting "human rights" correct?
I
Iaculus
Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?
Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?[/QUOTE]
thanks to the christian cultural heritage.
I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.
I
Iaculus
Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?[/QUOTE]
thanks to the christian cultural heritage.
I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.[/QUOTE]
And why do you think that moral tradition was created? What purpose did it serve?
Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?[/QUOTE]
thanks to the christian cultural heritage.
I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.[/QUOTE]
And why do you think that moral tradition was created? What purpose did it serve?[/QUOTE]
Good service at restaurants.
I
Iaculus
Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?[/QUOTE]
thanks to the christian cultural heritage.
I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.[/QUOTE]
And why do you think that moral tradition was created? What purpose did it serve?[/QUOTE]
Good service at restaurants.[/QUOTE]
And is there any higher cause? :toocool:
Religion serves (insert deity/belief system here) first and foremost. Human rights serve... well... humanity first and foremost, and usually have a fair measure of evidential backup regarding why what they are protecting is beneficial (or, at least, not actively harmful) to society as a whole. You say they are created by consensus, but why was that consensus reached?[/QUOTE]
thanks to the christian cultural heritage.
I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.[/QUOTE]
And why do you think that moral tradition was created? What purpose did it serve?[/QUOTE]
Good service at restaurants.[/QUOTE]
And is there any higher cause? :toocool:[/QUOTE]
XD
I have to say that I always thought religious beliefs where not so different. It's that idea of "circumcision prevents infection" "no pig protects form sickness" "no clams protects form poisoning" "poligamy is useful in a society with few males"... etc. etc.
Of course, this basic elements are then a basis for other stuff that may not be so useful...
But, in it's core, it's a pretty similar thing.
I
Iaculus
thanks to the christian cultural heritage.
I'm all in favour of the human rights, but it's nothing more than a cultural construction based on the western moral tradition.[/quote]
And why do you think that moral tradition was created? What purpose did it serve?[/quote]
Good service at restaurants.[/quote]
And is there any higher cause? :toocool:[/quote]
XD
I have to say that I always thought religious beliefs where not so different. It's that idea of "circumcision prevents infection" "no pig protects form sickness" "no clams protects form poisoning" "poligamy is useful in a society with few males"... etc. etc.
Of course, this basic elements are then a basis for other stuff that may not be so useful...
But, in it's core, it's a pretty similar thing.[/QUOTE]
So why not update them as our knowledge-base expands, rather than sticking to outdated prohibitions simply because we've always done it that way? I mean, a lot of the stuff in Leviticus seems to be intended to discourage behaviour likely to result in diseases and medical conditions they couldn't handle. Eating shellfish, drinking from water that something had just died in, incest, having anal sex... you get the picture.
Incest, in fact, is a good example. Nobody at the time was quite sure how the whole 'genetics' business worked, so they went massively overboard in order to prevent the known negative consequences. Marrying your brother's ex was prohibited, for instance. Nowadays we have a better idea of how things work, so that's just fine and dandy... provided your brother doesn't object.
I might be one of the most progressive catholics you may meet, so I agree with you...
The problem is that lots of things that may be updated will still be part of the person's behaviour as cultural heritage. I still remember when my mother had some people of jewish heritage, but totally non religious, over and said "hey, why don't we go and eat at this wonderful restaurant my brother has suggested me?"
The special dish was paella (rice with several possible combinations of animals inside).
They finally ate just the rice in that paella. The rest of the animals inside that particular one were found by all of them to be disgusting, almost revolting.
And, curiously enough, where all forbidden by judaism!
The problem is that lots of things that may be updated will still be part of the person's behaviour as cultural heritage. I still remember when my mother had some people of jewish heritage, but totally non religious, over and said "hey, why don't we go and eat at this wonderful restaurant my brother has suggested me?"
The special dish was paella (rice with several possible combinations of animals inside).
They finally ate just the rice in that paella. The rest of the animals inside that particular one were found by all of them to be disgusting, almost revolting.
And, curiously enough, where all forbidden by judaism!
I
Iaculus
Well, sure, but the right to do something generally includes the right not to do it as well.
Even if human beings aren't wholly rational, at least our laws can be.
We agree.
So, what do we do now?
So, what do we do now?
:tea:We agree.
So, what do we do now?
Rational can't enter in to it without an idea of "good" or at least "better" to favor one outcome over another. Even simple things like life and death are subject to a moral standing. Yes we can all easily say "life over death" but others are saying "planet over human life" right now. Who's right?
So when the "basics" become hard, how can it be easy to be "rational" when making laws? The end result is that belief is at the heart of all of it. Once you have a principal to go toward (or against), you can then act rationally, but the principal itself is always founded on nothing but belief.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Damn. We need a "Bump this Thread When You See A Real Discussion" thread. Sure it'd be bumped only rarely, or maybe even only ever for what just went on above. But hey! It could be worth shot.
I
Iaculus
Rational can't enter in to it without an idea of "good" or at least "better" to favor one outcome over another. Even simple things like life and death are subject to a moral standing. Yes we can all easily say "life over death" but others are saying "planet over human life" right now. Who's right?
So when the "basics" become hard, how can it be easy to be "rational" when making laws? The end result is that belief is at the heart of all of it. Once you have a principal to go toward (or against), you can then act rationally, but the principal itself is always founded on nothing but belief.[/QUOTE]
The danger with that level of moral relativism, though, is in the logical conclusion drawn from it. If all moral standings are equal by dint of being moral standings, then all beliefs become equally valid - including that of the chap who wants to burn down the planet and dance naked in the ashes. If you can't see the immediate problem with that, then I'm afraid I don't have the training required to argue with sociopathy.
Human rights are amongst the latest and most sophisticated attempts in a millennia-spanning experiment to ensure the greatest happiness and satisfaction for the greatest number of people, and that's why I think they deserve respect. After all, empathy is an inherent aspect of humanity.
K
Kitty Sinatra
I'm pretty sure Eriol's whole point of discussion centers upon morals commonly held by a large group of people, which would make that chap's beliefs irrelevant if he's the only one - or one of a small sect - who holds them.
I imagine it's rather impossible to get a large group of people to agree to a set of morals that don't benefit them significantly, which would make any set of accepted morals the foundation of a pretty sturdy society. There really couldn't be any way a society would build itself around morals centered upon Annihilism (I'm coining that right now apparently) because it wouldn't benefit many people. Nor, on the other extreme, will we ever see a society built upon the morals of pure do-goodery because it would require too great a sacrifice on the part of all; our Christian morals don't teach us to be that do-gooder named Jesus, only to act like him, at times, to a small degree, as convenient, while still looking out for Number One.
I
Iaculus
I'm pretty sure Eriol's whole point of discussion centers upon morals commonly held by a large group of people, which would make that chap's beliefs irrelevant if he's the only one - or one of a small sect - who holds them.
I imagine it's rather impossible to get a large group of people to agree to a set of morals that don't benefit them significantly, which would make any set of accepted morals the foundation of a pretty sturdy society. There really couldn't be any way a society would build itself around morals centered upon Annihilism (I'm coining that right now apparently) because it wouldn't benefit many people. Nor, on the other extreme, will we ever see a society built upon the morals of pure do-goodery because it would require too great a sacrifice on the part of all; our Christian morals don't teach us to be that do-gooder named Jesus, only to act like him, at times, to a small degree, as convenient, while still looking out for Number One.[/QUOTE]
Then the question becomes what system best fulfils those commonly-held moral objectives and value judgements (and on an average, they tend to be fairly similar). In that case, I'm going for human rights outlines and similar endeavours for the reasons mentioned above.
K
Kitty Sinatra
I rather agree with you there, but I also think that's the case because we can afford such a "high minded" moral stance in the West. Also, I think such a moral stance is necessary.
We can afford the idea of Human Rights because we have a surplus of resources and luxury. There's no harm to us for sharing. It's also necessary because our near-zero population growth makes it too risky to have morals that permit killing, and eliminating our own personal genetic lines. So as a group we can decide, yes, everyone deserves these rights because it's the best choice for us.
In a society of scarce resources, a less high-minded morality is kinda necessary if we want any chance of anyone getting enough in order to live. And these societies of scarceness tend to have high birth rates, permitting the endless "warfare" without a great risk of wiping out those genetic lines.
Anyway, that's a half-assed argument for why I don't think the idea of Human Rights would've worked for the Western World of 1000 years ago, and I don't even think it works for parts of the world now. It makes sense for us now, and I hope it makes sense for everyone soon. But that's my thought on the subject.
And so - to get back to what I think Eriol was discussing - I think a society's morals are shaped by what makes sense for the survival of the species at a given time, and that what is good wholly depends on the circumstances. Once that's determined, we build our beliefs around that, whether that's a religious code or the current, more secular idea of the Global Society as expressed in various declarations of human rights.
We can afford the idea of Human Rights because we have a surplus of resources and luxury. There's no harm to us for sharing. It's also necessary because our near-zero population growth makes it too risky to have morals that permit killing, and eliminating our own personal genetic lines. So as a group we can decide, yes, everyone deserves these rights because it's the best choice for us.
In a society of scarce resources, a less high-minded morality is kinda necessary if we want any chance of anyone getting enough in order to live. And these societies of scarceness tend to have high birth rates, permitting the endless "warfare" without a great risk of wiping out those genetic lines.
Anyway, that's a half-assed argument for why I don't think the idea of Human Rights would've worked for the Western World of 1000 years ago, and I don't even think it works for parts of the world now. It makes sense for us now, and I hope it makes sense for everyone soon. But that's my thought on the subject.
And so - to get back to what I think Eriol was discussing - I think a society's morals are shaped by what makes sense for the survival of the species at a given time, and that what is good wholly depends on the circumstances. Once that's determined, we build our beliefs around that, whether that's a religious code or the current, more secular idea of the Global Society as expressed in various declarations of human rights.
I agree with most of your interpretations of what I'm saying, but you're going further than my simple point: the concept of "Human Rights" has no more special status than any other belief by itself because it is only a belief. I'm with you that most beliefs have more standing because of the numbers that follow it, but the "Human Rights" idea put out isn't superior by itself.
But all of that is still avoiding what is the core question IMO: What is right? I know it's not really answerable, but I do believe that it's a question worth pursuing, even if it can never really be answered totally.
But all of that is still avoiding what is the core question IMO: What is right? I know it's not really answerable, but I do believe that it's a question worth pursuing, even if it can never really be answered totally.
C
crono1224
Hate gays and women? Then give Catholicism a try!
Then how do you know they are gay? *rimshot* or something?
A person can be gay without being sexually active.[/QUOTE]
Then how do you know they are gay? *rimshot* or something?
K
Kitty Sinatra
Because they tell you they are. Of course, all gays are liars so you can't actually believe what they say.
:yo:
:yo:
S
Soliloquy
Dang, where did all this thoughtful, rational discussion come from? This is a thread about religion, for goodness sake!
We're supposed to end this with soured feelings, lowered respect for everyone involved, and a lock!
We're supposed to end this with soured feelings, lowered respect for everyone involved, and a lock!
The good times are over!
Dave
Staff member
in before... dang it.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
we need a new invader zim or this community is doomed.
Favorite. Emoticon. EVER!
All I got.
The superiority that people see in the Human Rights thing is that we assume that they came about from rational thought and discussion among many men, rather than a prophet. This of course ignores that they had their genesis as a secularization of Judeo-Christian principles.
But that secularization is what makes them better, in my opinion. As a global movement with over two thousand years of history, and two billion members, Christianity has a lot of momentum to direct, especially since the church doesn't really have any legislative power: only influence over voters. And that's ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of denominations with differing and often times contradictory philosophies.
Human Rights, however, are newer and ostensibly based on rationalism. That makes them much nimbler, so we can have things happen like Norway declaring internet access a human right.
At the core though, you're right. It's just another belief system which in itself might not be any more valid than a religious worldview. But I like it because it's non-sectarian, pretty much universally applicable (even despite Gruebeard's point), and open for debate without cries of 'Heresy!' floating through the conversation.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
thank you, I was afraid that this thread was going to end with a rational and logical note, now back to status quo.
despite the brainwashing that you have suffer from your religion, moral concepts that judeo-christian-pastafarians are based are far older than them religion themselves, many human rights might have "copied" them, but religion is just a irration cultural aspect that we made up for survival, but we have grown up and come with the rational aproach, is not flawless but is way more logical than believing that we still "live" beyond death or that there is someone watching from the sky.
thank you, I was afraid that this thread was going to end with a rational and logical note, now back to status quo.
despite the brainwashing that you have suffer from your religion, moral concepts that judeo-christian-pastafarians are based are far older than them religion themselves, many human rights might have "copied" them, but religion is just a irration cultural aspect that we made up for survival, but we have grown up and come with the rational aproach, is not flawless but is way more logical than believing that we still "live" beyond death or that there is someone watching from the sky.[/QUOTE]
No problem. I will now misinterpret your condescending remarks as compliments. Yes, I have been getting to the gym, thanks for noticing.
First: Your brainwashing comment is not only inflammatory, but ridiculously misdirected. Of course you don't know that, because you don't really know me, but I know me very well and I can assure you that it's downright humorous to be accused of being an empty-headed follower of Christianity. Again, I don't expect you to see that because we don't know each-other, but it's quite telling that without any relevant data other than my religious affiliation, that is the assumption you made.
Now, the point regarding Judeo-Christian values and when they came about is immaterial. I said "[Human Rights] had their genesis as a secularization of Judeo-Christian principles." I didn't say that those Judeo-Christian principles were the first step, or the second step, or the twenty eighth step. I said that they were the penultimate step. If you wish to disagree, it's a matter to take up with various figures of the Renaissance, not me.
Further, I don't disagree about the 'purpose' that religion serves, not even when it comes to my own. I realize that the various laws and commands in scripture form a primitive "How Not To Let Your Society Die for Dummies." And if you had read my post more fully than you quoted it, you'd have seen that I'm for the idea of secularized Human Rights. They are a thing that I like.
In conclusion, I'm really not sure what prompted such a condescending response, but I hope we can get past it, because it seems like neither of us want this thread to descend into the typical religious/political-discussion shitfest.
Nooooo! We almost made it!
- Status