You can't....
It depends on how you define the question. The poll question asks the respondents whether they believe in natural rights. I responded that I did. I was then asked to provide objective proof to support my belief. I responded I had no "proof" in the sense that I've never had a right hit me in the head. On the other hand, I've seen no objective proof to disprove the theory even though some have maintained categorically that there is no objective basis for natural rights. What I have said is human intellect has given us the ability to reason, and reason tells us that a being that has the ability to reason, experience living, and feel thoughts and emotions has value beyond mere existence. I'm still waiting for the counter-argument.
Is their moral sense different, or do they just violate what they know to be true? If someone does something for you because he wants to from his free will while another does something for you because he's forced to would it be "reasonable" to give each circumstance the same moral worth? Why would this ever be true?
Was it? I wonder. How many Germans knew about the death camps and the scale of the Final Solution? How many of them just kept their mouths shut because if they opened them they'd end up on an eastbound train? How many of them had a sense that what they were doing was wrong but grudgingly participated? And how many of them had an absolutely amazing moral epiphany between 1940 and 1945 when national shame set it?
Using nukes on Japan was the lesser evil because it stopped the conflict with far fewer casualties.What? Justify mass killing?
Using nukes on Japan was the lesser evil because it stopped the conflict with far fewer casualties.
There, mass killing justified.
There are a boatload of people who do wrong because they believe it was right. Because given their knowledge and the circumstance that is the sensible moral decision to come to. When the aztecs sacrificed children they didn't have some moral sense suggesting 'oh this is wrong we shouldn't be doing this'. They genuinely believed what they were doing was morally right.
The exact same situation can have different moral outcomes depending on your knowledge of it. We all share the same knowledge of the genocidal events now so we can make a common judgement on the morality of it, but objectivity is an illusion.
I'm sure the Japanese viewed it (and still do now) as immoral.
Subjective morality justified.
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."
American Experience . Race for the Superbomb . General Curtis E. LeMay, (1906 - 1990) | PBS
Using nukes on Japan was the lesser evil because it stopped the conflict with far fewer casualties.
There, mass killing justified.
by saying there is no natural rights, you reject all law in america, because all law is built on the foundation of our organic laws.
Using nukes on Japan was the lesser evil because it stopped the conflict with far fewer casualties.
There, mass killing justified.
That is patently ridiculous. One does not have to believe in mythic gods in the sky handing out our rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers in October to have a respect for law.
It's a myth that one has to believe in gods wearing white togas hurling lightning bolts from their perch atop Mt. Olympus to believe in natural rights.
I'm sure they do, too, but then sometimes a leader is faced with a Hobson's choice in which there is no moral or "right" answer. Even the Air Corps general in charge of the bombings said:
So where is the subjectivity here? Incinerating kids who know nothing of warfare is wrong. Nonetheless, I can't fault Truman for dropping the Bomb.
That is patently ridiculous. One does not have to believe in mythic gods in the sky handing out our rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers in October to have a respect for law.
My ownership can't be bought or sold. The entire concept of owning another human being is flawed. You can force someone into labor for you, but you can't own them like you can a car or piece of land.
Ummm .... Wha? Were you asleep during history class or something? I'm pretty sure chattel slavery in the US was exactly like owning a piece of land or a car.
My point is that you can't give up ownership of yourself.
That isn't required for you to become somebody's property. Dogs don't give up ownership of themselves. Neither do cars, neither does land. People appropriate those things just like they do human beings. The notion that they aren't owned like any other piece of property is contrary to that which is taught in any history class or even basic historical evidence.
Everything I said would apply to animals as well. A dog is in control over it's own body and they can not freely give it up nor can anyone take it from them.
A car doesn't own anything as it's an inanimate object
and a piece of land is just a bunch of dirt of rocks that have no abilities of their own.
That's nice Henrin, however becoming somebody's slave does not require you to willingly give up control over yourself. It is the forceful appropriation of another human being. This is a pretty simple concept, why are you having so much trouble with it?
Neither does a dog.
No, but they couldn't be permitted to infect the general populace. They'd have to quarantined, even if that meant indefinitely in a controlled environment.
oh, let me show your the error of your ways
An organic law is a law or system of laws which forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization's body of rules. A constitution is a particular form of organic law for a sovereign state.
The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1788
try reading them for a change.
Organic law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
veg·e·ta·ble
ˈvejtəb(ə)l,ˈvəjədəb(ə)l/
noun
1.
a plant or part of a plant used as food, typically as accompaniment to meat or fish, such as a cabbage, potato, carrot, or bean.
"fresh fruit and vegetables"
oh, let me show your the error of your ways
An organic law is a law or system of laws which forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization's body of rules. A constitution is a particular form of organic law for a sovereign state.
The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1788
try reading them for a change.
Organic law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My point is that you can't give up ownership of yourself. You can claim you sold yourself into slavery and someone can claim they have ownership of you, but in reality a transfer of ownership never happened. The only way it could happen is if you could transfer control over your own body, but as it stands that is not possible.
Even if I was going to agree that people can in fact be property it would still require ownership to be transferred to the slave owner.
That is absolutely absurd. You don't need to be owned by somebody first in order to become a slave. You're made into a slave through force. The same way that land is made into property, the same way that dogs are made into property, the same way in which anything else is made into property. It is made into property through force.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?