What I mean by that is: 1. Is there anything that no entity may do to a person no matter what possible gain one can get from it? 2. And if not, then is there any boundary past which rights can be infringed upon? 3. Or do rights exist at all - but then was the Holocaust or mass murder in the past (or a hypothetical one) justified (or rather not-not justified)? 4. And if the second question, then what causes this - what creates such a boundary?
Some questions to think about: Is it justifiable to murder an innocent person to save the world? The Trolley Problem:
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
1. Is there anything that no entity may do to a person no matter what possible gain one can get from it? 2. And if not, then is there any boundary past which rights can be infringed upon? 3. Or do rights exist at all - but then was the Holocaust or mass murder in the past (or a hypothetical one) justified (or rather not-not justified)? 4. And if the second question, then what causes this - what creates such a boundary?
There are no universal rights but for society to work better they make laws about rights for people.
And with the moral dilemma there's a guys idea that if you kill people as collateral damage you are fine with it but if you actually kill them you are resistant to it.
There are no universal rights but for society to work better they make laws about rights for people.
If these rights are not inherent, how is it necessary for society to invent them for some functional purpose.
And if they exist and are justified to exist for a functional purpose, how is it that they aren't inherent?
And with the moral dilemma there's a guys idea that if you kill people as collateral damage you are fine with it but if you actually kill them you are resistant to it.
But you've simply stated an ethical viewpoint - you've asserted it without backing it up. Why should this be?
What I think is particularly fascinating, is that our felons (and other wrong-doers) sometimes seem to have more rights that "upstanding" citizens, or even victims seem to.
If these rights are not inherent, how is it necessary for society to invent them for some functional purpose.
And if they exist and are justified to exist for a functional purpose, how is it that they aren't inherent?
Rights makes society function better because there is no reason why you aren't allowed to kill people other than society works better if no one kills each other. Humans are just another animal and animals don't give each other rights.
Rights makes society function better because there is no reason why you aren't allowed to kill people other than society works better if no one kills each other. Humans are just another animal and animals don't give each other rights.
So if these exist for a functional purpose, then they should exist. But if they don't exist inherently, why should they exist at all?
Society functions better with rights than without them? If they serve a functional purpose, then they are inherent, no?
So if these exist for a functional purpose, then they should exist. But if they don't exist inherently, why should they exist at all?
Society functions better with rights than without them? If they serve a functional purpose, then they are inherent, no?
No but the point is tht humans tell each other we have rights and since it works better if we have rights they are part of society. And just because something helps it doesn't mean that it is inherent.
No but the point is tht humans tell each other we have rights and since it works better if we have rights they are part of society. And just because something helps it doesn't mean that it is inherent.
So there is nothing unjustified in itself with murder?
So there is nothing unjustified in itself with murder?
Well to a cAveman say no there isn't. Since I was brought up in society I am opposed to it but nothing really unjustified if you are brought up to be non empathetic.
Rights are the by product of society. You cannot have a society without them. As each grows so does the other. They are not inherrent, they are determined by us, hence why they change over time.
If they serve a functional purpose, then they are inherent, no?
Um... no? What does a functional purpose have to do with being inherent?
Rights makes society function better because there is no reason why you aren't allowed to kill people other than society works better if no one kills each other.
Not quite. It's not because it makes society function better (I'd want to know your definition of better, by the way), it's because it makes a group more likely to pass on its genes.
Rights are subjective ideas created by humans. They exist solely as ideas. That is, they exist in a very real and tangible sense, just like any other object.
John Locke believed that we were given certain natural rights that no one could/should be allowed to take away. I think some of those rights included life and choice--my enlightenment history is meh. However, we do live in a world with Social Contract theory. If we want to have security in our lives, we are forced to give up freedoms that we would otherwise have. Without society and its rules, we'd have anarchy.
To sum up what I believe on the matter, we have as much freedom as we allow ourselves to have. Our only limitations are the ones we put on ourselves for safety in society.
Well to a cAveman say no there isn't. Since I was brought up in society I am opposed to it but nothing really unjustified if you are brought up to be non empathetic.
>_< Moral relativists...
All innocent beings with sentience have the right to live. This is inherent. None of us can justly take an innocent life without reason. Sentience is a gift, but once one has it then one has the right to its continuity for as long as they wish (and as long as is possible).
look rights do not exist if so then you could not break them and you would always have them and there will always be a time when you carnt do what you have a right to do.
