Zone1 POLL: "Where do (your) Basic Human Rights come from? Zone1

[toobfreak]

I know but alang1216 said that they were moral.

Alang doesn't know squat.

 

[ChristisKing]

Oh come on. No. NOTHING I've said suggests that.

And please don't troll me with crap like that.

You just told me that society makes up morality so if murder and theft were made legal would that be moral to you?

 

[dblack]

You just told me that society makes up morality so if murder and theft were made legal would that be moral to you?

As I indicated, I think that would be a bad moral.

But I think you're begging the question: assuming that religion is the only source of morality and simply rejecting any other sources, because they don't come from religion. And I can't argue with that. (because its not a valid argument).

 

[Chuz Life]

What are rights without morality?

Great question.

Here is my way of explaining it and answering it, for myself.

At its most basic level, a "right" is a "claim."

My life belongs to me, and I will do what I can to defend that life (whether God or morals exist or not).

Because my life belongs only to me, I have a claim (right) to it, at the very least on that level.

After that, logically, I can conclude that my children's lives belong to them, YOUR life belongs to YOU, etc. (All without the need for morality to tell me so)

 

[Leo123]

Great question.

Here is my way of explaining it and answering it, for myself.

At its most basic level, a "right" is a "claim."

My life belongs to me, and I will do what I can to defend that life (whether God or morals exist or not).

Because my life belongs only to me, I have a claim (right) to it, at the very least on that level.

After that, logically, I can conclude that my children's lives belong to them, YOUR life belongs to YOU, etc. (All without the need for morality to tell me so)

Rights in a society are given not claimed. Defending one's own life is survival not a right. In fact, one may NOT have the right to survive if they take the life of another. One can claim all they want however they don't have the right, in a society, to callously take the life of another. If you are issued the death penalty, your life is no longer yours in a society.

 

[Crepitus]

Okay, but why? What made them come to this conclusion?

First you have to realize that many societies did not come to the same conclusions we eventually did.

"Might makes right" was the core "value" of many many societies for millennia, still is some places to this very day.

Aztec's thought it was right and moral to sacrifice babies to their gods, Vikings exposed (abandoned in the cold) people from newborns on up if they thought they were weak.

Hitler and his crew thought they had the right to rule the world.

None of those things worked very well in the long turn or with larger societies. Hard to have a real society when your neighbor might kill you and take your stuff just because he's bigger than you. Or force himself on your mate. or any number of other things.

So why did we come to this conclusion? It could be just simple survival. Our societies outlasted the one who didn't choose as wisely.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, yet some here think chimps have the same morals as humans.

Then they must be chimps. I never bother with what some think:

1. 80% of society doesn't think at all. They have simply been programmed to conform to government and media.
2. 15% of society thinks, but still subject to lies, confusion and misdirection, plus poor conclusions and deductions.
3. 4.9999% of society is real hep, but lacks all the tools to always reach perfectly concise conclusions.
4. That only leaves about 0.0001% of society capable of truly seeing clearly on all issues due to clear thinking, education, and an unfettered internal moral compass to see past all of the bullshit.

 

[Leo123]

Then they must be chimps. I never bother with what some think:

1. 80% of society doesn't think at all. They have simply been programmed to conform to government and media.
2. 15% of society thinks, but still subject to lies, confusion and misdirection, plus poor conclusions and deductions.
3. 4.9999% of society is real hep, but lacks all the tools to always reach perfectly concise conclusions.
4. That only leaves about 0.0001% of society capable of truly seeing clearly on all issues due to clear thinking, education, and an unfettered internal moral compass to see past all of the bullshit.

Guess I'm part of the .0001%, after all, don't I have a right to be?

 

[ChristisKing]

As I indicated, I think that would be a bad moral.

According to who? You? What defines bad morals?

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not one known for advocating for killing trees but how the heck are they supposed to have rights?

I am the one who introduced the idea that even a tree has a right (claim) to the life it is living.

This is objectively evidenced by (at least) two things.

1. If you remove the tree from the life it is living or the life from the tree. BOTH will be destroyed.

Conclusion, the life that the tree is living BELONGS to the tree that is living it.

2. To the degree and extent that even a tree can "defend" itself, it will do so.

Obviously, a tree does this instinctively through a hard-wired survival instinct.

Do bugs, birds, lightning strikes, or even humans care or have to care that the tree has a right to the life it is living?

Probably not.

But that lack of caring does not prove the tree never had a right to the life it was living.

 

[dblack]

According to who? You? What defines bad morals?

I've answered this - over and over again. Why are you ignoring my answers and asking again, as though no one can answer the question???

 

[Chuz Life]

Government doesn't 'grant' rights, it only recognizes or denies them.

Depends on what right we are talking about.

There are some qualified rights that are constructs of government.

Voting, for example.

I'm guessing you know this,

Just wanted to clarify.

 

[ChristisKing]

I've answered this - over and over again. Why are you ignoring my answers and asking again, as though no one can answer the question???

You haven't answered a thing in this thread or my own one.

 

[dblack]

You haven't answered a thing in this thread or my own one.

Actually, I have. I guess you haven't been reading my posts. Or you just didn't like my answers. Anyway, this is getting trollish, so Ima move on.

 

[alang1216]

So, we start with an allegation that a "God" (that may or not exist in reality) did some things (but probably didn't) and then we assail that "God" with appeals to ridicule for the inconsistencies that we (mere humans) might perceive.

This is like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to unfuck a football.

IF there is a God, he made this world knowing what it would become. It is only logical to assume that, if there is a God, this is the world he wants.

 

[alang1216]

I know but alang1216 said that they were moral.

They a morality, just not one I share. The Nazis had a morality too.

 

[Chuz Life]

IF there is a God, he made this world knowing what it would become. It is only logical to assume that, if there is a God, this is the world he wants.

One of the many reasons for my conclusion that there probably is no such God.

Though I remain agnostic on the idea.

 

[dblack]

A simple I don't know would suffice.

You're trolling. I have no patience with that. You're sitting on your lazy ass ignoring real answers because - hell I don't know why. Either because the answers don't validate your assumptions, or maybe you're just trolling for some negative attention. Something else?

You're question has been answered and you don't like the answers. Rather than expressing why you think the answers aren't satisfactory, you just keep ignoring them. I'm not putting up with that shit.

 

[alang1216]

I disagree.

Any scientist can objectively observe that the vast majority of creatures on Earth will not only act in self-defense to guard their own lives, but also the lives of their progeny and even the lives of their social groups.

In some cases, it has been observed that animals with the ability can even hold grudges and seek revenge.

So, your claim that it is "meaningless" is subjective at best.

When male lions take over a pride they kill all the cubs so they can father their own. That is nature.

 

[cnm]

And for all our flaws, we are one of the better examples.

You are no better than the rest.