• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Rights vs Morals (1 Viewer)

G

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Re: Require man to make descision

Admin note: Thread split from abortion topic.

well Pacridge my points about rights is this. 'what is a right' surely a right is a product of our morality. but i do not believe there is a morality but rather a plurality of moralities. Nietzsche once said 'god is dead' his meaning is that morality is not pre-ordained but is dependent on the individual. if morality is plural how can we have rights. a right cannot be universal, so is a right space and timed based. can a right applicable in the USA be applicable in the UK. can we have the right to life, we never chose life. i would be interested in other peoples view on this. i wonder what people feel a right is and what they have the right to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Require man to make descision

But then I wasn't using the word *view* in the trivial sense that you seem to be suggesting. We all have an internal *world view* that is based on all of our beliefs and understandings of the world around us. Every individual will have a different world view because every individual has a different experience of the world. Furthermore, our own world view isn't always very consistent from a logical point of view.

Absolutely! I agree with you 100%.

For example, some people will be strongly anti-abortion but pro capital punsihment, or vice versa. Neither of those is *logical*.

Your example is questionable. I am VERY anti-abortion and VERY pro-capital punishment. A child that is in the womb cannot make a choice. An adult can. An adult can choose to murder or commit violent crimes. A little person in the womb can only wait in the warm comfortable surrounding. How is this illogical?
 
Re: Require man to make descision

globalvision said:
'what is a right' surely a right is a product of our morality. but i do not believe there is a morality but rather a plurality of moralities.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Rights and morality are seperate pieces of the puzzle.

A "right" is granted or taken away by the governments. They can be ever changing - you have the right to speech - you have the right to this or that.

A "moral" can hardly be defined. Something deap down inside everyone knows that it is wrong to lie. Something deap down inside us knows that it is wrong to steal and murder. Murder without provication was wrong 10,000 years ago as it is today. Morals are constants and there are few of them. This has nothing to do with religion or one's rights.
 
Re: Require man to make descision

i agree with you in part vauge a right is established by the government. but if this is the case then it is not a priori in any sense, it is our creation. also a right is therefore within a state and cannot be a universal. therefore is the UN declaration on human rights valid. America says that everyone has the right to freedom but how can this be so, the right to freedom may exist in the US but this does not mean it exists in everyplace.

i cannot believe that morality is constant, or as you say a moral. i would also disagree that 10000 years ago it was immoral to kill without provocation. there are many places where killing without provocation occurred. but i suppose it depends on how you interpret it. is slavery immoral, i would like to hope it was, but America in part had a war about it, although interpretation of the constitution was one of the main reasons of the civil war.

however you view it you statement states that a right is confined to a state if so it is not universal, therefore is it still a right. or is the whole meaning of a right not what we commonly believe it is.
 
Re: Require man to make descision

globalvision said:
i agree with you in part vauge a right is established by the government. but if this is the case then it is not a priori in any sense, it is our creation. also a right is therefore within a state and cannot be a universal. therefore is the UN declaration on human rights valid. America says that everyone has the right to freedom but how can this be so, the right to freedom may exist in the US but this does not mean it exists in everyplace.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It would be more accurate to say "America believes that all should be free."

globalvision said:
i cannot believe that morality is constant, or as you say a moral. i would also disagree that 10000 years ago it was immoral to kill without provocation. there are many places where killing without provocation occurred. but i suppose it depends on how you interpret it. is slavery immoral, i would like to hope it was, but America in part had a war about it, although interpretation of the constitution was one of the main reasons of the civil war.
Click to expand...

The above blue text is where the history books were re-written to include this. The civil war had nothing to do with slavery. I would not call slavery a moral.

I am going to split this thread... we have gotten way off topic and into another interesting topic.
 
well thank vauge. for splitting the topic i will try to write one back on the abortion topic as i can see that you are very anti-abortion.

i agree i would not call slavery a moral. although perhaps it is immoral. there are so many confusions about morality and rights.

governments always say we have the 'right' to do this or that. i feel that this term is over used which leads to it being miss understood and used in the wrong context. i hope others participate in this debate so we can talk about there views.
 
Re: Require man to make descision

vauge said:
For example, some people will be strongly anti-abortion but pro capital punsihment, or vice versa. Neither of those is *logical*.

Your example is questionable. I am VERY anti-abortion and VERY pro-capital punishment. A child that is in the womb cannot make a choice. An adult can. An adult can choose to murder or commit violent crimes. A little person in the womb can only wait in the warm comfortable surrounding. How is this illogical?
Click to expand...

Because, from a logical point of view, either it's OK to take a life or it isn't. Not "It's OK when I say it is and not OK when I say it isn't." We make subjective judgements about things, based on our personal world view all the time. It's part of what we are!
 
globalvision said:
well thank vauge. for splitting the topic i will try to write one back on the abortion topic as i can see that you are very anti-abortion.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, I saw it as a new potential an interesting topic.

Because, from a logical point of view, either it's OK to take a life or it isn't. Not "It's OK when I say it is and not OK when I say it isn't." We make subjective judgements about things, based on our personal world view all the time. It's part of what we are!
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, but respectfully disagree. To me it is to kill an innocent or to demand justice to a criminal.
 
vauge said:
I see where you are coming from, but respectfully disagree. To me it is to kill an innocent or to demand justice to a criminal.
Click to expand...

And if the "criminal" was wrongly convicted (and it happens) then an innocent has been killed. Is that OK?
 
Naughty Nurse said:
And if the "criminal" was wrongly convicted (and it happens) then an innocent has been killed. Is that OK?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed it does happen. Of course it's not ok. That is why there is a proposition (can't remember title) in congress to require DNA testing on all criminals suspected/currently convicted of murder or violent crimes with death penalty on the board.

Comparing ~30 people killed a year (in US) using the death penalty a year to hundreds of thousands of babies killed is not logical either.
 
vauge said:
Comparing ~30 people killed a year (in US) using the death penalty a year to hundreds of thousands of babies killed is not logical either.
Click to expand...

We're talking about fundamental principles. Numbers are irrelevant!
 
can you just say it is moraly wrong to kill anyone?

i do not belive in the death penalty.
 
globalvision said:
can you just say it is moraly wrong to kill anyone?
Click to expand...

No, not really! It may be OK in self defence, for instance. At work I regularly give strong opiate drugs to people. I may have technically killed people that way - no way of knowing as they're so close to death anyway. There are few absolutes in life, and therin lies the problem!

i do not belive in the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Good on ya!
 
Naughty Nurse said:
No, not really! It may be OK in self defence, for instance. At work I regularly give strong opiate drugs to people. I may have technically killed people that way - no way of knowing as they're so close to death anyway. There are few absolutes in life, and therin lies the problem!


dont worry naughty nurse i only said that to get a response from you. of course there are no absolutes if there was we would not be debating it and the problem would have been solved a lot longer ago. people die in war but even the church says there can be a 'just war'.
Click to expand...
 
damn it naughty nurse your from the UK. my plan to take over america and then the world has yet to gain an american following
 
But when they realise it's in their best interests they'll support you all the way!
 
spread the word naughty nurse

THE ENGLISH ARE COMING

now all i need is a constitutional amendment, marry a Kennedy, believe in god, win the lottery a few hundred times, and somehow do a bush trick and rig an election. wow sounds easy.
 
Well that's the morning taken care of. What will you do in the afternoon?
 
not sure naughty nurse, suppose i could work out the formula for everything, and take on einsteins mantel. but sounds a bit easy after taking over america dont it.

maybe i will make an executive decision and send bush to iraq, where he can share a cell with his bud saddam
 
globalvision said:
maybe i will make an executive decision and send bush to iraq, where he can share a cell with his bud saddam
Click to expand...

Throw Tony Blair in with them, too!
 
well i will try naughty, but wherever tony is you know he is going to try and change the world. he needs a planet of his own as is head is just to big for this planet. what do you think is causing global warming its the gravity of his head pulling earth towards the sun.

he does not want to leave much in his legacy does he, um lets see, No1 solve northern ireland, No2 solve the middle east crises, No3 solve world poverty, No4 solve environmental problem, No5 eradicate terrorism ect ect
 
globalvision said:
he does not want to leave much in his legacy does he, um lets see, No1 solve northern ireland, No2 solve the middle east crises, No3 solve world poverty, No4 solve environmental problem, No5 eradicate terrorism ect ect
Click to expand...

No6 - find attractive wife!:eek:
 
oh thats just mean naughty, its not her fault she looks like she has been hit with a spade and associates with crimanals.

tony is going grey and balding these days, do you honestly think he could get much better with those ears and the way he talks, must bore the poor women to death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom