You are very vague in your rebuttal. Some of the evdience, what evidence? You can't just make a vague assertion and then offer no support.
My assertion would be that your evidence, at best, shows that there are some very basic emotional reactions linked to survival, which appear consistently and early in our development.
That is such a far cry from morality being inborn it's not funny. Empathy is not morality. Recognising altruism is not morality. Morality involves complex higher cognitive functions, which are not developed in infants and which are something we develop and learn as we grow.
Kohlberg's stages of moral development would be a good place to begin to consider how morality develops as we grow.
Why, being social creatures requires being moral by the fact that just living together brings out dilemmas we have to deal with that involves making moral judegments about behaviour.
And you've never noticed that toddlers don't have the capacity to manage those situations and dilemmas?
tell me if we are made in Gods image and therefore have the spark of the divine in us how does this not mean part of that is Gods laws.
Again we come back to the question: what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Common answers over the millennia of Christian thought have included dignity, agency, free will, rationality, relationality. What Christians have not tended to see it as meaning is that we somehow arrive with a pre-programmed moral sense. Far from it; the traditions which have wrestled with this most deeply have all ended up emphasised the
formation of the conscience as a critical developmental (and teaching) task.
In fact research also shows that belief is also inbred as divine ideas like a moral lawgiver, a creator entity, life after death (a soul) ect.
Really? Then how do you explain atheists?
The studies already factored this out.
Not possible. The infants had had contact with other people, which means, experience and learning from interacting with and observing them.
Later studies with infants found their belief in divine concepts and moral sense are not simply anthropomorphized from adults.
How on earth do you gauge the religiosity of pre-verbal infants?
Why is it that you keep making these absolute claims like "Oh dear Lord, no" or "absolutely not" and then I can easily refute this by just showing one counter view.
You might think you're refuting what I'm saying, but it is not in the slightest bit convincing. To be blunt, to me, your claims are completely unsupported, and a very ill-informed and simplistic take on history, science, and theology.
The Church done horrible things this century but we still knew about the Truth of Human Rights.
No. No we didn't. Not in the sense you mean. You might find it interesting to investigate the principle of "
Error non habet ius" and the way it has been applied.
You mean modern perspective on the same Truth principles that have been around throughout our history.
No, I do not. I mean you are claiming a continuity of "truth principles" that is, in fact, not the case.
I just showed you even secular rulers knew these truth principles of equality and freedom even in the ancient world let alone Christians.
If that were true, we wouldn't have had millennia of slavery; of the divine right of kings; of patriarchy, and so on. You cherry-pick a few statements here and there and say this illustrates some universal truth, but the vast weight of evidence is that people did not think, or write, or live, in accordance with the truth you're claiming they all knew.
Let me ask you why did the declaration of the US and other nations say that the natural Rights of all are self-evident and inalienable. What did they mean is they did not mean self-evident.
Look at what the US's declaration of independence was doing; it was justifying separation from England, from the crown, and from the claims made about the authority of the crown. They are justifying their rebellion by claiming they have a right to rebel. Of course they're going to use the strongest rhetoric they can muster.
What you have to consider is that, at the time, these arguments were not universally accepted. They were by no means taken as self-evident by all, not least by the people asserting the authority of the crown. They then had to fight a war about it, and if they'd lost, this declaration would have become an obscure historical footnote. But history, as they say, is written by the victors...
The principle of limiting governments and Kings was about equality, about every person having equal Rights to life. It put the commoner on equal footing to governments as far as individual Rights were concerned.
If that were true, we wouldn't have seen (for example) the death penalty continue. The power of kings was limited, in order to contain their destructive potential, but it wasn't about equality.
I agree our conscience can be lacking, we can trick it, we can knowingly over ride it. But this does not negate that there are truths we can know in the world including moral truths, Gods perfect law which is written on our hearts, our conscience.
No, I'm not talking about tricking or ignoring one's conscience. I'm talking about a conscience which, to be blunt, gets it wrong.
But somehow your then taking this to claim there are no moral truths we can know through our conscience.
No, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm rejecting your position that our conscience is inborn and infallible. That doesn't mean we can't have a well-formed conscience, but that's not a given.
Anyone can claim I didn't know it was wrong or I didn't feel or think it was wrong.
Anyone can, in fact, not know that something was wrong.
You keep making these absolute claims and I keep knocking them down.
Lol.
Most Historians and even the UN acknowledges that the foundations for Human Rights has been around for millenia. I have already provided support for this.
This is like saying that Christine de Pisan was the first feminist. It's true that there are themes in her work which relate to later feminist ideas, but to claim her as a feminist is to project a whole social development and worldview backward onto her in a way which anachronistically distorts who she was.
So yes, it's true that there are ancient documents and moments which relate to later ideas about human rights. But to claim those as some sort of ancient expression of those ideas about human rights, and the worldview around them, that we hold today, projects our modern situation backward onto them in a way which anachronistically and profoundly distorts their historical reality.
It elevates all humans from the corruptable to the incorruptable.
All humans? I would have thought that would be something we might claim for those who are in Christ.
But those who believe women are not made in Gods image are blanatantly denying Gods Truth and even the Truth of secularists such as in the US and most nations Declaration.
All I am doing is illustrating for you that your take on what it means to be made in God's image is not even universally agreed by Christians.
Just because this Truth exists doesn't automatically mean that everyone will agree
Aren't you the one who's been claiming that everyone, everywhere, has always known this as some transcendant, overriding truth?
We don't even all believe in God. This is no basis for agreed human rights in a secular pluralist society.
Men don't get 52 weeks off for being parents.
Again, either parent can take parental leave.
Right...so you exhaust your work leave in 4 months and let go....because of the barrier keeping you as an employee created by yoour leave.
Because you're not able to return to work. But that's not (generally) true after having a baby.
A pregnant employee gets a year.
You're very stuck on that figure. In America it's twelve weeks, which really isn't
that big a deal.
No it's not...women have choices, those choices have consequences.
Women face choices men never have to make, and face barriers
as women because of that.
Nobody has treated the pregnant woman who signs a contract unfairly either.
If the contract sets out to deliberately strip her of her legal rights, it darned well is unfair!
Not when it comes to the need to interact respectfully with your co-workers.
Regarding work, not your personal life.
How you relate to and communicate with others in the workplace is not a matter of one's "personal life."
That's a ridiculous statement. Your employer isn't obligated to protect your fragile feelings.
To some degree, they are. Eg. see
here:
"As an employer you must:
Provide a healthy and safe workplace both physically and mentally. This is a legal requirement under
work health and safety laws.
- Prevent harm by identifying and managing any factors that can impact workplace mental health.
...
- Keep a record of workplace illness or injuries, including psychological injuries. You can do this by having a ‘registry of injuries’. SafeWork NSW has advice on having a register of injuries."
And here, which mentions global standards around this: Psychological health and safety in 2023: What’s changed?
