Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Human rights proving every single one Thread
#26

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-04-2020, 01:13 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 12:33 PM)Aegon Wrote: It's not as if human rights are random. We established them for clear reasons. Are they arbitrary because there's no god to bestow them? If you dont believe in god, why describe things relative to god?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have no objective existence. They aren't arbitrary, as they appear to be dictated by facts of human nature and societies, but since human nature and societies are a purely contingent factor, they aren't objective in the usual sense.

(03-04-2020, 04:15 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: They are arbitrary. There is no objective foundation. If you ground your moral system on "human well being" its an arbitrary choice you made. You cant give an objectve reason for why you chose this baseline and you cant rule out that someone else choses another baseline.

Of course once you accept "human well being" as a given foundation, everything else that follows is not arbitrary but a logic consequence. Still, the foundation itself is arbitrary.

So then nothing is objective?
[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]

Reply
#27

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-04-2020, 04:28 PM)Aegon Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 01:13 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 12:33 PM)Aegon Wrote: It's not as if human rights are random. We established them for clear reasons. Are they arbitrary because there's no god to bestow them? If you dont believe in god, why describe things relative to god?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have no objective existence.  They aren't arbitrary, as they appear to be dictated by facts of human nature and societies, but since human nature and societies are a purely contingent factor, they aren't objective in the usual sense.

(03-04-2020, 04:15 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: They are arbitrary. There is no objective foundation. If you ground your moral system on "human well being" its an arbitrary choice you made. You cant give an objectve reason for why you chose this baseline and you cant rule out that someone else choses another baseline.

Of course once you accept "human well being" as a given foundation, everything else that follows is not arbitrary but a logic consequence. Still, the foundation itself is arbitrary.

So then nothing is objective?

I think Ethical Objectivism is a hard case to make under Naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism). An "ought" requires an answer "why" that leads back to some unchanging concept/object to make it objective.

This is also the reason that the OP is set up to fail -- there is no "proving" rights without an objective grounding.
Reply
#28

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-04-2020, 04:28 PM)Aegon Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 01:13 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 12:33 PM)Aegon Wrote: It's not as if human rights are random. We established them for clear reasons. Are they arbitrary because there's no god to bestow them? If you dont believe in god, why describe things relative to god?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have no objective existence.  They aren't arbitrary, as they appear to be dictated by facts of human nature and societies, but since human nature and societies are a purely contingent factor, they aren't objective in the usual sense.

(03-04-2020, 04:15 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: They are arbitrary. There is no objective foundation. If you ground your moral system on "human well being" its an arbitrary choice you made. You cant give an objectve reason for why you chose this baseline and you cant rule out that someone else choses another baseline.

Of course once you accept "human well being" as a given foundation, everything else that follows is not arbitrary but a logic consequence. Still, the foundation itself is arbitrary.

So then nothing is objective?

Human rights are only objective with regards to their foundation: human well being.
But the foundation itself isnt objective, thus human rights ultimatively arent as well.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
Reply
#29

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-04-2020, 05:25 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 04:28 PM)Aegon Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 01:13 PM)Dānu Wrote: Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have no objective existence.  They aren't arbitrary, as they appear to be dictated by facts of human nature and societies, but since human nature and societies are a purely contingent factor, they aren't objective in the usual sense.

(03-04-2020, 04:15 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: They are arbitrary. There is no objective foundation. If you ground your moral system on "human well being" its an arbitrary choice you made. You cant give an objectve reason for why you chose this baseline and you cant rule out that someone else choses another baseline.

Of course once you accept "human well being" as a given foundation, everything else that follows is not arbitrary but a logic consequence. Still, the foundation itself is arbitrary.

So then nothing is objective?

I think Ethical Objectivism is a hard case to make under Naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism). An "ought" requires an answer "why" that leads back to some unchanging concept/object to make it objective.

This is also the reason that the OP is set up to fail -- there is no "proving" rights without an objective grounding.


There is no need to.  We all believe in some moral system, even hedonism can be a basis for human rights.
Reply
#30

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-03-2020, 10:47 PM)Aractus Wrote: Bucky and SYZ are assholes, pay no attention to them.

... says the patronizing arrogant idiot who has no friends and thus feels compelled to repeatedly air his family's dirty laundry on this site.

Quote:Yes laws are built on "rights" but one thing that happens with the law is that there can be a clash of rights and then a hierarchy of rights needs to be established. For example your right to be free from arbitrary detention against the rights of others in society to be safe.

Nope. One type of laws are built on common agreement, the other type of rights COME FROM law.
You should take Civics 101.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#31

Human rights proving every single one Thread
Natural Rights exist from the a priori assumption that humans are free of outside influences like deities, aliens, and magic. The basic current idea that humans have rights just by being human is the basis for all freedom. Society is the idea that some freedoms can or should be limited for "the greater good". And THAT, my friends is "politics".
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#32

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-05-2020, 09:08 AM)Cavebear Wrote: Society is the idea that some freedoms can or should be limited for "the greater good".  And THAT, my friends is "politics".
I disagree.

Society is the realisation that you and me are closely interacting, that your rights must end where mine begin (and vice versa), that you and your rights arent existing in a vacuum.

I dont like your statement because it seems to suggest some "dictatorial" mindset is prevalent in everyone who diagrees with your view which i think isnt. Your statement seems to suggest that many think the *community* is above the individual, which many or most societies in fact do NOT claim. Essentially i view it as a strawman from (extreme) individualists towards those who disagree with them.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
Reply
#33

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-05-2020, 11:16 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 09:08 AM)Cavebear Wrote: Society is the idea that some freedoms can or should be limited for "the greater good".  And THAT, my friends is "politics".
I disagree.

Society is the realisation that you and me are closely interacting, that your rights must end where mine begin (and vice versa), that you and your rights arent existing in a vacuum.

I dont like your statement because it seems to suggest some "dictatorial" mindset is prevalent in everyone who diagrees with your view which i think isnt. Your statement seems to suggest that many think the *community* is above the individual, which many or most societies in fact do NOT claim. Essentially i view it as a strawman from (extreme) individualists towards those who disagree with them.

Talk about misunderstanding, WOW!

Natural Rights are those that "are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws" (Wikipedia). That is the opposite of community. "Community" is where we keep natural rights but VOLUNTARILY not use them for the sake of mutual benefit.

Let's say I have a wide and narrow plot of land and for you to get to your own property, you would have to travel an hour to get home. I ALLOW you to walk through my property for your benefit. In exchange, you leave me a jar of milk from your cow. We both benefit, though I have no "right" to your milk and you have no right to trespass my property. Yet we both benefit (society).

You have not surrendered your right to the cow milk and I have not surrendered my property right. We both retain our rights, but have temporarily surrendered a right for mutual benefit (society). And can both assert our natural rights to possessions and property at any time.
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#34

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-04-2020, 11:35 PM)Link Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 05:25 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-04-2020, 04:28 PM)Aegon Wrote: So then nothing is objective?

I think Ethical Objectivism is a hard case to make under Naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism). An "ought" requires an answer "why" that leads back to some unchanging concept/object to make it objective.

This is also the reason that the OP is set up to fail -- there is no "proving" rights without an objective grounding.


There is no need to.  We all believe in some moral system, even hedonism can be a basis for human rights.

There is no need to do what? Your purpose in the OP was "proving every human right". That can't be done. If you think it can, then explain how.
Reply
#35

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-05-2020, 11:38 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 11:16 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 09:08 AM)Cavebear Wrote: Society is the idea that some freedoms can or should be limited for "the greater good".  And THAT, my friends is "politics".
I disagree.

Society is the realisation that you and me are closely interacting, that your rights must end where mine begin (and vice versa), that you and your rights arent existing in a vacuum.

I dont like your statement because it seems to suggest some "dictatorial" mindset is prevalent in everyone who diagrees with your view which i think isnt. Your statement seems to suggest that many think the *community* is above the individual, which many or most societies in fact do NOT claim. Essentially i view it as a strawman from (extreme) individualists towards those who disagree with them.

Talk about misunderstanding, WOW!

Natural Rights are those that "are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws" (Wikipedia).  That is the opposite of community.  "Community"  is where we keep natural rights but VOLUNTARILY not use them for the sake of mutual benefit.  

Let's say I have a wide and narrow plot of land and for you to get to your own property, you would have to travel an hour to get home.  I ALLOW you to walk through my property for your benefit.  In exchange, you leave me a jar of milk from your cow.  We both benefit, though I have no "right" to your milk and you have no right to trespass my property.  Yet we both benefit (society).

You have not surrendered your right to the cow milk and I have not surrendered my property right.  We both retain our rights, but have temporarily surrendered a right for mutual benefit (society).  And can both assert our natural rights to possessions and property at any time.

You have given no account of where "Natural Rights" come from. "Universal and inalienable" requires a foundation. If you don't have a foundation, any argument base on them ends up begging the question.
The following 1 user Likes SteveII's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#36

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-05-2020, 11:38 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 11:16 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 09:08 AM)Cavebear Wrote: Society is the idea that some freedoms can or should be limited for "the greater good".  And THAT, my friends is "politics".
I disagree.

Society is the realisation that you and me are closely interacting, that your rights must end where mine begin (and vice versa), that you and your rights arent existing in a vacuum.

I dont like your statement because it seems to suggest some "dictatorial" mindset is prevalent in everyone who diagrees with your view which i think isnt. Your statement seems to suggest that many think the *community* is above the individual, which many or most societies in fact do NOT claim. Essentially i view it as a strawman from (extreme) individualists towards those who disagree with them.

Talk about misunderstanding, WOW!

Natural Rights are those that "are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws" (Wikipedia).  That is the opposite of community.  "Community"  is where we keep natural rights but VOLUNTARILY not use them for the sake of mutual benefit.  

Let's say I have a wide and narrow plot of land and for you to get to your own property, you would have to travel an hour to get home.  I ALLOW you to walk through my property for your benefit.  In exchange, you leave me a jar of milk from your cow.  We both benefit, though I have no "right" to your milk and you have no right to trespass my property.  Yet we both benefit (society).

You have not surrendered your right to the cow milk and I have not surrendered my property right.  We both retain our rights, but have temporarily surrendered a right for mutual benefit (society).  And can both assert our natural rights to possessions and property at any time.

Call me irritated but first you claim
Quote:Society is the idea that some freedoms can or should be limited for "the greater good"
then you argue
Quote:"Community" is where we keep natural rights but VOLUNTARILY not use them for the sake of mutual benefit.

Im my playbook "limiting" anyones rights is not equal to "voluntarily" not using them. Not at all.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
Reply
#37

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-05-2020, 04:14 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 11:38 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 11:16 AM)Deesse23 Wrote: I disagree.

Society is the realisation that you and me are closely interacting, that your rights must end where mine begin (and vice versa), that you and your rights arent existing in a vacuum.

I dont like your statement because it seems to suggest some "dictatorial" mindset is prevalent in everyone who diagrees with your view which i think isnt. Your statement seems to suggest that many think the *community* is above the individual, which many or most societies in fact do NOT claim. Essentially i view it as a strawman from (extreme) individualists towards those who disagree with them.

Talk about misunderstanding, WOW!

Natural Rights are those that "are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws" (Wikipedia).  That is the opposite of community.  "Community"  is where we keep natural rights but VOLUNTARILY not use them for the sake of mutual benefit.  

Let's say I have a wide and narrow plot of land and for you to get to your own property, you would have to travel an hour to get home.  I ALLOW you to walk through my property for your benefit.  In exchange, you leave me a jar of milk from your cow.  We both benefit, though I have no "right" to your milk and you have no right to trespass my property.  Yet we both benefit (society).

You have not surrendered your right to the cow milk and I have not surrendered my property right.  We both retain our rights, but have temporarily surrendered a right for mutual benefit (society).  And can both assert our natural rights to possessions and property at any time.

You have given no account of where "Natural Rights" come from. "Universal and inalienable" requires a foundation. If you don't have a foundation, any argument base on them ends up begging the question.

For the record: Theists like you claim to be able to give account or have a foundation for. Foundation based on something you admit you cant and never wont be able to comprehend, and you cnat demontrate to exist outside your own imagination in the first place.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
Reply
#38

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-05-2020, 05:20 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 04:14 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 11:38 AM)Cavebear Wrote: Talk about misunderstanding, WOW!

Natural Rights are those that "are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws" (Wikipedia).  That is the opposite of community.  "Community"  is where we keep natural rights but VOLUNTARILY not use them for the sake of mutual benefit.  

Let's say I have a wide and narrow plot of land and for you to get to your own property, you would have to travel an hour to get home.  I ALLOW you to walk through my property for your benefit.  In exchange, you leave me a jar of milk from your cow.  We both benefit, though I have no "right" to your milk and you have no right to trespass my property.  Yet we both benefit (society).

You have not surrendered your right to the cow milk and I have not surrendered my property right.  We both retain our rights, but have temporarily surrendered a right for mutual benefit (society).  And can both assert our natural rights to possessions and property at any time.

You have given no account of where "Natural Rights" come from. "Universal and inalienable" requires a foundation. If you don't have a foundation, any argument base on them ends up begging the question.

For the record: Theists like you claim to be able to give account or have a foundation for. Foundation based on something you admit you cant and never wont be able to comprehend, and you cnat demontrate to exist  outside your own imagination in the first place.

Thanks for the reminder. Notice who is bringing up God though.

Did my belief affect the truth of anything I said so far in this thread?
Reply
#39

Human rights proving every single one Thread
We don't have talk about moral foundation. Atheistic learn Ethics in work settings as well, and don't need to justify their belief in morality to do so.

It's the same with human rights. Assume morality and then act according to common sense. In fact, even hedonism can be a sufficient basis to establish human rights.
Reply
#40

Human rights proving every single one Thread
There are two type of rights. Negative and Positive.

Negative means all people are required to do is not infringe on them.

Positive is more complicated, but it means people should give people those rights but involves action and giving, instead of just not violating.

I will email the professor if I'm allowed using his terms on what defines a positive right and how to prove one. Otherwise, I might be infringing his material copy rights.

I will ask.
Reply
#41

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-05-2020, 06:02 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 05:20 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 04:14 PM)SteveII Wrote: You have given no account of where "Natural Rights" come from. "Universal and inalienable" requires a foundation. If you don't have a foundation, any argument base on them ends up begging the question.

For the record: Theists like you claim to be able to give account or have a foundation for. Foundation based on something you admit you cant and never wont be able to comprehend, and you cnat demontrate to exist  outside your own imagination in the first place.

Thanks for the reminder. Notice who is bringing up God though.

Did my belief affect the truth of anything I said so far in this thread?


Steve, when you said "I think Ethical Objectivism is a hard case to make under Naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism)", you implied God.  What other reason could there be for attributing anything to a category whose only purpose is to house that being which you can't point to in the natural world?

What really does that sentence I just quoted say except that it is hard to justify ethical objectivism given only what we know about the natural world?  Do you really think reference to an uninstantiated, unobservable and indemonstrable realm is going to improve the justification of anything whatsoever?  Please tell me how that is supposed to work.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#42

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-23-2020, 04:29 PM)Mark Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 06:02 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 05:20 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: For the record: Theists like you claim to be able to give account or have a foundation for. Foundation based on something you admit you cant and never wont be able to comprehend, and you cnat demontrate to exist  outside your own imagination in the first place.

Thanks for the reminder. Notice who is bringing up God though.

Did my belief affect the truth of anything I said so far in this thread?


Steve, when you said "I think Ethical Objectivism is a hard case to make under Naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism)", you implied God.  What other reason could there be for attributing anything to a category whose only purpose is to house that being which you can't point to in the natural world?

What really does that sentence I just quoted say except that it is hard to justify ethical objectivism given only what we know about the natural world?  Do you really think reference to an uninstantiated, unobservable and indemonstrable realm is going to improve the justification of anything whatsoever?  Please tell me how that is supposed to work.

I pointed out what many atheist philosophers have long ago realized that you cannot get to objective ethics within a naturalistic framework. It is a feature of the philosophy. If absolutely zero people believes in supernaturalism, it would still be true.

I also want to be clear that Ethical Objectivism is not impossible. Just only under Naturalism.
Reply
#43

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-25-2020, 08:38 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-23-2020, 04:29 PM)Mark Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 06:02 PM)SteveII Wrote: Thanks for the reminder. Notice who is bringing up God though.

Did my belief affect the truth of anything I said so far in this thread?


Steve, when you said "I think Ethical Objectivism is a hard case to make under Naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism)", you implied God.  What other reason could there be for attributing anything to a category whose only purpose is to house that being which you can't point to in the natural world?

What really does that sentence I just quoted say except that it is hard to justify ethical objectivism given only what we know about the natural world?  Do you really think reference to an uninstantiated, unobservable and indemonstrable realm is going to improve the justification of anything whatsoever?  Please tell me how that is supposed to work.

I pointed out what many atheist philosophers have long ago realized that you cannot get to objective ethics within a naturalistic framework. It is a feature of the philosophy. If absolutely zero people believes in supernaturalism, it would still be true.

I also want to be clear that Ethical Objectivism is not impossible. Just only under Naturalism.

It's not possible under religion, either.  The whole basis of the religion is made up, it is not objectively true.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply
#44

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-25-2020, 08:38 PM)SteveII Wrote: ... I also want to be clear that Ethical Objectivism is not impossible ...

Just what the hell constitutes "objective" morality - I've never seen its acolytes define it.  Is it a long laundry list of specific behaviors, ticked in a checkbox "OK" or "Not OK"?  Or is it an overarching principle, against which any behavior drawn from an infinite list of behaviors can be compared and thereby ticked "OK" or "Not OK"?

My suspicion is that it's hermaphrodite, dependent on circumstance and occasion; sometimes a specific behavior condemned (e.g. homoeroticism bad, murder bad), or an overarching principle (e.g. do god's will good, murder infidels good), but in all cases fundamentally deficient in purpose, scope, coherence, consistency and, above all, entirely subjective without a molecule of true objectivity within it.

So define it.  In hard objective terms with accompanying objective proofs.  Until that's set forth there's no point arguing it; that's like arguing a god exists that itself has never been defined.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#45

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(03-25-2020, 08:38 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-23-2020, 04:29 PM)Mark Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 06:02 PM)SteveII Wrote: Thanks for the reminder. Notice who is bringing up God though.

Did my belief affect the truth of anything I said so far in this thread?


Steve, when you said "I think Ethical Objectivism is a hard case to make under Naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism)", you implied God.  What other reason could there be for attributing anything to a category whose only purpose is to house that being which you can't point to in the natural world?

What really does that sentence I just quoted say except that it is hard to justify ethical objectivism given only what we know about the natural world?  Do you really think reference to an uninstantiated, unobservable and indemonstrable realm is going to improve the justification of anything whatsoever?  Please tell me how that is supposed to work.

I pointed out what many atheist philosophers have long ago realized that you cannot get to objective ethics within a naturalistic framework. It is a feature of the philosophy. If absolutely zero people believes in supernaturalism, it would still be true.

I also want to be clear that Ethical Objectivism is not impossible. Just only under Naturalism.

Wrong again Biola for brains. There is no such thing as objective ethics under any system.
All assertions, whether you *think* you're making it clear or not, (which you did not even attempt).
Reply
#46

Human rights proving every single one Thread
Assume morality is objective regardless of world views and appeal to common sense for human rights.
Reply
#47

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(3 hours ago)Link Wrote: Assume morality is objective regardless of world views and appeal to common sense for human rights.

When you 'assume' you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#48

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(3 hours ago)Dānu Wrote:
(3 hours ago)Link Wrote: Assume morality is objective regardless of world views and appeal to common sense for human rights.

When you 'assume' you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'.

Human rights are proven without arguing for a basis of morality. This because it appeals to all humans of various views to uniting on human rights regardless whether Atheists or Theists or what religious background they come from.  You can even be a hedonist and believe pleasure is the measure of all morality and everything should be to maximizing this in all people, and human rights still can be proven by that view.

This thread is not about what morality is, but about human rights.   You can't shift topics everywhere. Everything has to be put in it's place.

I do believe God is necessary for true form of morality to be what it is, and for objective morality, but human rights doesn't having you to need to understand this.

People in general believe in morality to be objective, and so human rights are just a subset of moral rights that should be implemented and safeguarded by the constitution and government.

Specific ways to address human rights will differ, but in general, all human rights can be proven by common reason and sense, and there is no need to debate about what the essence of morality is but really, assume it's true as most people do, and work with common understanding of cultures and try to prove human rights and unite on them.
Reply
#49

Human rights proving every single one Thread
(3 hours ago)Link Wrote:
(3 hours ago)Dānu Wrote:
(3 hours ago)Link Wrote: Assume morality is objective regardless of world views and appeal to common sense for human rights.

When you 'assume' you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'.

Human rights are proven without arguing for a basis of morality. This because it appeals to all humans of various views to uniting on human rights regardless whether Atheists or Theists or what religious background they come from.  You can even be a hedonist and believe pleasure is the measure of all morality and everything should be to maximizing this in all people, and human rights still can be proven by that view.

False. Some believe the unborn are human and have a right to life. Many do not. Many believe a woman has a right to autonomy of her body. The first group does not.

What should we "assume" in this case?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)