Schools have changed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It goes back to that thread the other day - with the argument that human rights can be relativised according to cultural idiosyncracies.

If you take that approach to the issue then you inevitably get into some rather murky amoral arguments where everything can be justified in relativistic terms. I'm not sure if morality exist if people refuse to accept basic terms of reference.

It seems to be a rather psychotic view of looking at the world. IMO.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Number 6

[isleta521 5]

Fair enough. The declaration exists. That is fact.

I believe I'll have a beer tonight. The beer exists. And thats my right.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Morality doesn't exist in the physical, scientific sense.

It's a behavior we've evolved. Being moral and kind and good is what keeps human society chugging along. If everyone was a serial killer, we'd all be dead.

It's a behavior. A desirable behavior. It's not 'real', however, any more than numbers are real. Numbers are abstractions used to quantify things. They're helpful. So is morality. Doesn't make it 'real'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Morality doesn't exist in the physical, scientific sense.

It's a behavior we've evolved. Being moral and kind and good is what keeps human society chugging along. If everyone was a serial killer, we'd all be dead.

It's a behavior. A desirable behavior. It's not 'real', however, any more than numbers are real. Numbers are abstractions used to quantify things. They're helpful. So is morality. Doesn't make it 'real'.

Sure - but if you go down that route, you can argue that nothing and nobody exists. Interesting philosophically - but really rather pointless.

Applying that reasoning to morality is rather murky, because it provides a rationale to justify anything. In that mind-set it wouldn't be all that difficult to argue, for instance, that murder is no big deal.

Mawilson, for example, often uses similar reasoning on other topics (i.e. we should, because we can). No offense to him of course. But it is an example of what I mean.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Nobody exists? Your physical existence can be demonstrated. It can be observed. Of course you exist.

My argument is this - that morality is good because it has proved helpful. Not because it is real. We need morality and we need to grant each other rights to have an orderly and pleasant society. Not because someone wrote it in a book or document or because it's real. It's important because it's good, because it works.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree with that assessment of morality Mr Troll. It is a human construct.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nobody exists? Your physical existence can be demonstrated. It can be observed. Of course you exist.

It can be - but the observations are based on numerous assumptions. Philosophically you can reduce everything (including the assumptions) to nothing.

My argument is this - that morality is good because it has proved helpful. Not because it is real. We need morality and we need to grant each other rights to have an orderly and pleasant society. Not because someone wrote it in a book or document or because it's real. It's important because it's good, because it works.

I have no argument with that.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Number 6

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ok I have no idea what my original point was anymore.

If I ever had one

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We should deny that this forum exists. And back away slowly from the keyboard. Which also does not exist

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Shut up, figment of my imagination!

[SMOKE 1,426]

Ok I have no idea what my original point was anymore.

If I ever had one

[Peikko 1,575]

You were trying to suggest that human rights are a belief system because rights don't exist in physical terms...I think. However, the fact that they have been spelled out in a document and that this document was willingly and knowingly ratified by a majority of global governments ensures that they do in fact exist as a quantifiable concept.

[Enlighten one :) 5]

Wow , I didn't realize this post would get so much communicaiton.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You were trying to suggest that human rights are a belief system because rights don't exist in physical terms...I think. However, the fact that they have been spelled out in a document and that this document was willingly and knowingly ratified by a majority of global governments ensures that they do in fact exist as a quantifiable concept.

That's fair enough. I would also suggest that some of those concepts are enshrined in religious texts in some very basic form, though they deal with fundamental morality rather than with the rights of the individual.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well it's more than that too. Human rights don't exactly fit with religion as many religions don't recognise that humans have any rights, just obligations to their particular deity.

However, if I continue along this very philosophical vein it's probable that this will be misconstrued as slamming religion, which is not my intention.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus