|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1444636) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 12:45:49 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 09:26:10 2017. That's just factually untrue.Proof, please. Or revise to something like "That has not been substantiated or shown." On the contrary; the unchanging will of God changes with every revolution, every generation, even every fad Agreed as apparent when it comes to religion to the extent that it sells itself to the times. people's fundamental desires tend to be fairly universal. Agreed. But why is it that constant universal desires should automatically be "blessed" via rights? In effect, they're not. Nobody wants to go to prison, and yet some go. There are benefits to others when one goes to prison. So nobody wants to be shot. . .you still have not indicated why one should not be shot, objectively speaking, since there almost always stands someone to benefit, however indirectly, from the loss of another's life. what you want is the basis for determining whether you gain or lose through an action Yes, if what you want is indeed good for you, ok (there's no guarantee of that by the way). But that still doesn't tell me that it's good for a select population to gain. And if we don't know that, then we don't know if overall "gain" is even a good thing because it's defined by you or whoever labels it gain. You don't want felons to gain. Or those who hurt society in not-so-obvious ways. At its core, morality is selfish— which means that people can support it out of self-interest. Or resist it, or manipulate it, out of self-interest. Selfism is always a dead end. morality asks what you want So then there are billions of different moralities, really. Now if you use the term "basic morality" to describe what those 8 billion agree to, you will not come up with much. Maybe you can squeak in the idea of no shooting for the sake of not being shot, but there are instances in which one actually may need to shoot in order to avoid being shot. Now what? They're your terms. What do you mean by "absolute good" and "absolute evil?" You're looking to make the world "better." (If not, why bother with this whole enterprise?) That means you're looking to approach some "goodness" mark, or some type of perfection. What would that be? How would we know if we're getting there, or further away? You can't go by majority happiness (since minority unhappiness may outweigh it), you can't even go on greater overall happiness at a given time becuase human happiness at any given moment is not reflective of whether future human unhappiness will outweigh that, or even if other species' happiness should be taken into account. One needs a definite end. What is that? If there is none, we're wasting time with the whole thing. Most (if not all) of the people "hurt" by a perfect moral system would be hurt more by any other system, so if they're rational they wouldn't even try to tear it down. Again, not necessarily. Those people may hurt others by challenging the system to help themselves. That doesn't necessarily make it bad for them and it can be a quite rational decision for them to preserve their own happiness (since selfism is key in your philosophy anyway) even at the expense of others' happiness. Humanity has been doing this all through history. . .we may say it's wrong, but your system has not explained why or how. I'd think of morality as more akin to traffic control at an extremely complicated intersection Ok, but then how do you decide who goes first, or who gets the longer "green" phase of the cycle? Isn't this a picturesque version of utilitarianism? Yes, you want a "fair" cycle so that it is enforceable and most people will agree to it, but this tells me nothing about how rights transcend governments. It just tells me that governments should look at what people will agree to in their respective territories and then decide what rights are good just based off that so they won't be constant lawbreakers -- in which case those rights can vary over time and do not transcend the government. a system which is imperfect for your sake is unlikely to garner the universal support it needs to be meaningful. Right, this is a drawback to a person in the minority trying to assert his/her will on a greater number of people, and so probably a waste of time. So do rights come from the government or do they transcend it? If in a given territory circumstances exist such that a right recognized elsewhere is not seen as practical (by an overwhelming majority of the people), does that mean that that government should not recognize that right? |
|
|
|