Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...

[muichimotsu]

Yes, good point. We should cultivate patience, realizing that people are at different places of understanding. There's a Buddhist prayer I remember from years ago when I hung out with some Chinese Buddhists, written by a famous abbot in Taiwan, the Ven. Hsing Yun, that was about that, among other things.

Above all, I am reminded of the saying of Confucius, when asked by a king how he could find more honest people to work for him. "Be honest yourself".

I bring up that understanding of people based on an article I happened to read a few weeks ago about Carl Sagan's suggestion of how we address ignorance and superstition, or religious beliefs that could be argued to be false, but one could claim they're harmless. The root cause, iirc, according to Sagan, was that fear of the unknown in one form or another.

Sad that I have that book, and it's just sat on my shelf (The Demon Haunted World one, that is)

 

[FireDragon76]

I bring up that understanding of people based on an article I happened to read a few weeks ago about Carl Sagan's suggestion of how we address ignorance and superstition, or religious beliefs that could be argued to be false, but one could claim they're harmless. The root cause, iirc, according to Sagan, was that fear of the unknown in one form or another.

Sad that I have that book, and it's just sat on my shelf (The Demon Haunted World one, that is)

As much as I appreciate Sagan, I think people are not fundamentally rational- an autonomous reason simply isn't how people relate to the world. The best way to engage with people is emotivism informed by reason, but not controlled by it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Emotivism is fallible, but so is deontology.

Yes, that's why I don't rely on deontology. It has some merits, but I prefer making recourse to, and incorporating, various perspectives on "Ethics of Care."

As a priest once wisely told me, truth is not a morally neutral quest. I think he meant, it requires asceticism and discipline. One of the few things I agreed with him with still.

And as a Philosophical Hermenuetist once told me, he agrees with your priest. But, then again, in prescient kind of way, so did Kierkegaard.

I go with the Buddha's words. Stick to what is praised by the wise and doesn't lead to harm.

... I'm sure the Buddha had something more specific to say about 'what' is best to apply in the realm of ethics and/or human rights.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, that's why I don't rely on deontology. It has some merits, but I prefer making recourse to, and incorporating, various perspectives on "Ethics of Care."

And as a Philosophical Hermenuetist once told me, he agrees with your priest. But, then again, in prescient kind of way, so did Kierkegaard.

... I'm sure the Buddha had something more specific to say about 'what' is best to apply in the realm of ethics and/or human rights.

I don't know that Buddha articulated an ethic of human rights. Just a way out of insanity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know that Buddha articulated an ethic of human rights. Just a way out of insanity.

I don't know either. But, I wonder how does the Buddha tell us to deal with someone who has something like severe OCD or, worse yet, Paranoid Schizophrenia?

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know either. But, I wonder how does the Buddha tell us to deal with someone who has something like severe OCD or, worse yet, Paranoid Schizophrenia?

When I was younger, I had OCD myself. There is no question that the Buddha's teachings are an antidote to the thought-patterns that trap a person is negative emotions.

I don't have sufficient expertise on schizophrenia or the Buddha's teachings to list specifics.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

... that's right! You heard what I said! Humanity, today, as it continues to increasingly reject a really substantial metaphysics by which to buttress what should be a Prescriptive admonishment to treat other human beings with respect, compassion and care, is pandering instead to an ethereal sense of Human Rights, one that isn't made up of principles containing much in the way of any evident axiomatic integrity: no, it just kind of floats upon a thin veneer of talk about something called "Well-Being."

No, if anything, today's supposed ethical superior position of secularized Human Rights over and against a more Christian sense of Human Rights is nearly, although not quite, the push to acquire equality and humanitarian essentials through the social exertion of sheer will-power, to bring about a pragamatic application to meet human needs that were defaced through Two World Wars, various horrors of the Cold War and fragmentation over various international squabbles that have been taking place for the last several decades.

So, with that said, it's time for everyone to start getting up to speed on the basic ideas that are really at play in our world on the international stage. I think, too, personally, the discussion about the supposed nature of Human Rights and how it should be articulated and how it is applied, even legally, should start with our reading of a chapter from Langlois' brief tour of the development of thinking on modern Human Rights and its inherent problems:

Langlois, Anthony J. "Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights."

I read the paper. It comes down to just show that there are natural rights or god given rights then we can talk. I don't believe that we have universal rights, rights are given by governments and should be determined by sound reasoning. There is no way to get to absolute universal human rights through philosophy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I read the paper. It comes down to just show that there are natural rights or god given rights then we can talk. I don't believe that we have universal rights, rights are given by governments and should be determined by sound reasoning. There is no way to get to absolute universal human rights through philosophy.

I appreciate that you've read the paper and have taken it seriously. And I quite agree with the basic thrust of your conclusions here: universal rights are very hard to come by in reality and, without a God, can't be said to be 'real' in any sense other than a legal one. There's really no way to get, as you've said, absolute universal human rights through human thought; likewise, there's really no way to get to a final, absolute, universal morality through human thought either, so this means that any ethical evaluations made by human beings are tenuous and nearly ethereal and not really resting on any firm foundations. This tenuousness would also apply to any moral 'system' we think we have and by which we think we might 'judge' the actions of a Divine Being.

Just so we're clear.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I appreciate that you've read the paper and have taken it seriously. And I quite agree with the basic thrust of your conclusions here: universal rights are very hard to come by in reality and, without a God, can't be said to be 'real' in any sense other than a legal one. There's really no way to get, as you've said, absolute universal human rights through human thought; likewise, there's really no way to get to a final, absolute, universal morality through human thought either, so this means that any evaluation made by human beings are tenuous and nearly ethereal and not really resting on any firm foundations.

I disagree with the word tenuous. We can use good reasoning and evidence based skepticism to reach a consensus of ethics and human rights.

This tenuousness would also apply to any moral 'system' we think we have and by which we think we might 'judge' the actions of a Divine Being.

Just so we're clear.

Like I said I disagree with the term tenuous. Also, I absolutely can use my moral system to objectively compare the actions of a god to my standard. But first the god needs to be demonstrated to exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree with the word tenuous. We can use good reasoning and evidence based skepticism to reach a consensus of ethics and human rights.

You can disagree, but the fact is, Secular Ethics and the various moral systems it comprises is a field dredged in conceptual multiplicity, a multiplicity that drains all of both your, and my, efforts to make absolutely concrete moral evaluations into sludge pond of existential morass. And neither you, nor can escape this fact.

Like I said I disagree with the term tenuous. Also, I absolutely can use my moral system to objectively compare the actions of a god to my standard. But first the god needs to be demonstrated to exist.

And you've just admitted here, then, that you are operating on personal standards, not some cosmic truth by which we all must assent. See, this is what I mean by 'tenuous.' Shall I take this further, with further points to make? (Keep in mind, I'm doing this as an educational procedure, not one by which I'm aiming to completely destroy your personal moral position; I rather appreciate the fact that you seem to be a fairly moral individual, with a conscience to protect your children from certain liberal influences [like those we saw represented during the Super Bowl ... ]

 

[Zoii]

I am very confused by the term Christian Ethics. What exactly is the paradigm, the set of yenets that guides a person to understand what is ethical and what isnt.

Take for example murder. If "look at the bible to determine if it's ethical" is the process to be used, Even that act - that is murder - isnt confusing using the bible as an ethical paradigm. Consider that God commissioned the killing of whole villages, including women and children (born or unborn). He destroyed the whole human race during a flood. He advocates death for a multitude of acts that today would seem rather trivial.... so what exactly is the ethical paradigm to determine when murder is OK and when isn't it - for example.

Now fast forward - We have a viral pandemic. Your city has limited Intensive Care Beds with massive demand. How does the bible inform who should have access to those beds?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You can disagree, but the fact is, Secular Ethics and the various moral systems it comprises is a field dredged in conceptual multiplicity, a multiplicity that drains all of both your, and my, efforts to make absolutely concrete moral evaluations into sludge pond of existential morass. And neither you, nor can escape this fact.

This is untrue. When I ask almost anyone if well being is a good start to morals they agree. If this can be agreed upon and generally is then concrete moral evaluations can be determined.

And you've just admitted here, then, that you are operating on personal standards, not some cosmic truth by which we all must assent. See, this is what I mean by 'tenuous.' Shall I take this further, with further points to make? (Keep in mind, I'm doing this as an educational procedure, not one by which I'm aiming to completely destroy your personal moral position; I rather appreciate the fact that you seem to be a fairly moral individual, with a conscience to protect your children from certain liberal influences [like those we saw represented during the Super Bowl ... ]

You cannot show a cosmic truth to which we all must assent either. So you are in the same boat. Tenuous means weak or slight. Moral determinations based on overall well being of everyone can be very solid. The rules of chess are arbitrary but if two people playing it agree that the goal is to win the game then moves can be evaluated against that goal. Basing morals on a supernatural being that cannot be demonstrated to exist is tenuous especially when Christians cannot agree on morals and ethics because there is no defined goal of christian ethics except to please god which there is no consensus among Christians on how to please god.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is untrue. When I ask almost anyone if well being is a good start to morals they agree. If this can be agreed upon and generally is then concrete moral evaluations can be determined.

Well-being? Do these same people, all of whom I will assume aren't just people like yourself, nor in your same locale and expressing your same personal philosophical outlook, tell you that they think 'well-being' is the beginning point? I assume you've, in fact, asked people all over the world about this, correct, people from various diverse backgrounds and cultures, right?

You cannot show a cosmic truth to which we all must assent either. So you are in the same boat.

That is correct. And I've never been the kind of Christian who said I could "show" a cosmic truth to which every other human being must bend. Hence, the reason I'm an existentialist and not a Fundamentalist Christian. There is a difference, Clizby. There is a difference in several ways, in fact.

Tenuous means weak or slight. Moral determinations based on overall well being of everyone can be very solid. The rules of chess are arbitrary but if two people playing it agree that the goal is to win the game then moves can be evaluated against that goal.

So which Ethical System should we all arbitrate and form our ethical conclusions and thereby make our moral deliberations and actions? Because, each ethical system can, and does, prescribe different ways to orchestrate a 'moral end.' And not only that, they sometimes prescribe a different moral outcome.

Basing morals on a supernatural being that cannot be demonstrated to exist is tenuous especially when Christians cannot agree on morals and ethics because there is no defined goal of christian ethics except to please god which there is no consensus among Christians on how to please god.

This thread ISN'T about defending my Christian view on ethics and morality, Clizby. It's about looking at the tenuousness of Human Rights conclusions and, by proxy, all systems of ethical thought. I'm challenging all of these other things rather than defending my own view; and I don't even need the Bible to do this. Besides, this section isn't an apologetics forum, so I'm not going to utilize apologetics.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well-being? Do these same people, all of whom I will assume aren't just people like yourself, nor in your same locale and expressing your same personal philosophical outlook, tell you that they think 'well-being' is the beginning point? I assume you've, in fact, asked people all over the world about this, correct, people from various diverse backgrounds and cultures, right?

I didn't know I needed the worlds approval on what I based my moral system against. Well being even thought not 100% defined is what I think the best basis to discuss morals. With this we can use reason, logic, science etc. to evaluate what promotes the best well being for all. I never said and I am not arguing there is any absolute basis for morals but we need to have some system in my opinion.

That is correct. And I've never been the kind of Christian who said I could "show" a cosmic truth to which every other human being must bend. Hence, the reason I'm an existentialist and not a Fundamentalist Christian. There is a difference, Clizby. There is a difference in several ways, in fact.

OK.

So which Ethical System should we all arbitrate and form our ethical conclusions and thereby make our moral deliberations and actions? Because, each ethical system can, and does, prescribe different ways to orchestrate a 'moral end.' And not only that, they sometimes prescribe a different moral outcome.

I have said what I think we should base our moral system on and I think I can convince most people that is is reasonable. What is your standard?

This thread ISN'T about defending my Christian view on ethics and morality, Clizby. It's about looking at the tenuousness of Human Rights conclusions and, by proxy, all systems of ethical thought. I'm challenging all of these other things rather than defending my own view; and I don't even need the Bible to do this. Besides, this section isn't an apologetics forum, so I'm not going to utilize apologetics.

Well as I have said we need to use reason, logic, evidence etc. to form our morals. I don't see any other more reasonable way. It is not absolute but it is also not tenuous, it has a foundation to which ethical decisions can be made in a concrete way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't know I needed the worlds approval on what I based my moral system against. Well being even thought not 100% defined is what I think the best basis to discuss morals. With this we can use reason, logic, science etc. to evaluate what promotes the best well being for all. I never said and I am not arguing there is any absolute basis for morals but we need to have some system in my opinion.

OK.

I have said what I think we should base our moral system on and I think I can convince most people that is is reasonable. What is your standard?

Well as I have said we need to use reason, logic, evidence etc. to form our morals. I don't see any other more reasonable way. It is not absolute but it is also not tenuous, it has a foundation to which ethical decisions can be made in a concrete way.

My overall point, here, is that we already know that my own point of moral view comes within the context of social and personal 'weakness,' and isn't enforceable by me, so again, I'm not here in this thread to defend Christianity. But in this overall point, I'm asserting that NEITHER does your own moral point of view have much substance by which the rest of the world must recognize it and bow.

See what I'm getting at? You've already just admitted above that your moral view isn't absolute nor universal; therefore it isn't authoritative and it isn't anything to which I MUST bow. And if it isn't, then neither does it have some kind of 'rational' finality that you keep asserting for it. You moral point of view may be the product of rational processes, just as have been those of Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Jesus, or any one of a diverse (and not always agreeing) Secular Ethical Theorists.

So, when YOU go about making moral evaluations about something like the Bible, you might temper it with the upfront acknowledgement to EVERYONE with whom you get into a discussion with that you do realize that your own view doesn't really carry the moral weight that you might "feel" it does.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

My overall point, here, is that we already know that my own point of moral view comes within the context of social and personal 'weakness,' and isn't enforceable by me, so again, I'm not here in this thread to defend Christianity. But in this overall point, I'm asserting that NEITHER does your own moral point of view have much substance by which the rest of the world must recognize it and bow.

I never said it was.

See what I'm getting at? You've already just admitted above that your moral view isn't absolute nor universal; therefore it isn't authoritative and it isn't anything to which I MUST bow. And if it isn't, then neither does it have some kind of 'rational' finality that you keep asserting for it. You moral point of view may be the product of rational processes, just as have been those of Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Jesus, or any one of a diverse (and not always agreeing) Secular Ethical Theorists.

What are you proposing is the alternative to reasoned morals then?

So, when YOU go about making moral evaluations about something like the Bible, you might temper it with the upfront acknowledgement to EVERYONE with whom you get into a discussion with that you do realize that your own view doesn't really carry the moral weight that you might "feel" it does.

So when I say "we should not force women to marry their rapist" as the Bible once instructed that we cannot come to a consensus about the morality of that.

Do you think this is morally ok? Why or why not?

Should we not use reason and logic to inform our moral decisions? What is your standard to determine your morals?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never said it was.

Alright.

What are you proposing is the alternative to reasoned morals then?

What do you mean "reasoned" morals? And as far as alternatives, you do realize that there are over a dozen individual, 'reasoned' ethical systems out there, all of which don't necessarily morally jive with one another, right?

Have you ever read the book, Ethics: An Introduction to Theories and Problems, by William S. Sahakian. I suggest you do, because he very succinctly and concisely lays out the different rational ethical systems that have existed and their respective strengths and problems, all of which in one way or another affects our individual conception about morality as well as Human Rights.

So when I say "we should not force women to marry their rapist" as the Bible once instructed that we cannot come to a consensus about the morality of that.

I never said the Bible says that; in fact, I'd deny that the Bible says that. See, this is what I'm getting at. You're imputing concepts and language in anachronistic, and by so doing, imply that you're chosen moral language is established as a bona-fide universal consideration, but it isn't! And this, again, is part of what this thread is getting at.

Do you think this is morally ok? Why or why not?

You need to take into account the precursor in the whole narrative to what brought that whole situation about in order to help determine if it is morally 'ok'? So, in this endeavor, here's the thing: you don't just get to pick a little portion or chapter out of the Bible that is obviously linked to greater social and historical narratives and details, rip it out, and then begin to say you're applying proper hermeneutics to understanding whatever the content is, even morally questionable content.

Here's another way of saying the same thing: we have to evaluate AT THE SAME TIME all of the other inherent details that go into the texts of the narratives being scrutinized. If we don't, then we're being disingenuous and essentially approaching the Bible with a preconceived social agenda and using our personal, modern moral codes to falsely justify our 'push' against what is written about in the bible.

Should we not use reason and logic to inform our moral decisions? What is your standard to determine your morals?

Yes, we should, which is why I harp so much on second order thinking, hermeneutics and philosophy of history and historiography. These latter things should be seen as part and parcel of the overall praxis in attempting to understand what it is we THINK we read in the Bible.

But no one seems to honestly want to do that these days. And I often wonder why?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Alright.

What do you mean "reasoned" morals? And as far as alternatives, you do realize that there are over a dozen individual, 'reasoned' ethical systems out there, all of which don't necessarily morally jive with one another, right?

Sure. But I doubt any of them would be ok with a women forced to marry her rapist. People agree on much more than they disagree when it comes to morals generally. We can start there.

Have you ever read the book, Ethics: An Introduction to Theories and Problems, by William S. Sahakian. I suggest you do, because he very succinctly and concisely lays out the different rational ethical systems that have existed and their respective strengths and problems, all of which in one way or another affects our individual conception about morality as well as Human Rights.

This is why discussions and reason need to be implemented.

I never said the Bible says that; in fact, I'd deny that the Bible says that. See, this is what I'm getting at. You're imputing concepts and language in anachronistic, and by so doing, imply that you're chosen moral language is established as a bona-fide universal consideration, but it isn't! And this, again, is part of what this thread is getting at.

Nope. I never said my morals are universal, Never.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Dt 22:28-29.

What moral system says this is good?

You need to take into account the precursor in the whole narrative to what brought that whole situation about in order to help determine if it is morally 'ok'? So, in this endeavor, here's the thing: you don't just get to pick a little portion or chapter out of the Bible that is obviously linked to greater social and historical narratives and details, rip it out, and then begin to say you're applying proper hermeneutics to understanding whatever the content is, even morally questionable content.

This is just another way of saying the parts of the bible I don't like I will make say what they don't say. The bible is explicit that a women is to marry her rapist if she is not pledged to be married.

Here's another way of saying the same thing: we have to evaluate AT THE SAME TIME all of the other inherent details that go into the texts of the narratives being scrutinized. If we don't, then we're being disingenuous and essentially approaching the Bible with a preconceived social agenda and using our personal, modern moral codes to falsely justify our 'push' against what is written about in the bible.

Then the bible is a mess of confusing nonsense and not accessible to all.

Yes, we should, which is why I harp so much on second order thinking, hermeneutics and philosophy of history and historiography. These latter things should be seen as part and parcel of the overall praxis in attempting to understand what it is we THINK we read in the Bible.

But no one seems to honestly want to do that these days. And I often wonder why?

Maybe most of the people in the world are busy feeding their families and not being killed in wars and such and don't have the luxury of time you do to study hermanutics, philosophy, history etc. You are making the bible inaccessible to a large portion to the world if this is a basis for understanding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. But I doubt any of them would be ok with a women forced to marry her rapist. People agree on much more than they disagree when it comes to morals generally. We can start there.

This is why discussions and reason need to be implemented.

Which what I've always been trying to do here on CF, but................................................................

Nope. I never said my morals are universal, Never.

That's honest of you.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Dt 22:28-29.

This can be dealt with somewhere else, but not in this thread. You know why don't you? There's at least two reasons!

What moral system says this is good?

As far as I know, NONE of them cite it as "an Axiological or Metaphysical good" ...

This is just another way of saying the parts of the bible I don't like I will make say what they don't say. The bible is explicit that a women is to marry her rapist if she is not pledged to be married.

I disagree, but for the sake of this thread, it doesn't really matter that I disagree on this point since this whole thread isn't focused on defending the Bible (and can't be here) but rather upon the qualities of merit--even competing claims to merit--inherent to the diverse ethical systems, past or present, that aver to state some support and definition for Human Rights. Are we clear?

Then the bible is a mess of confusing nonsense and not accessible to all.

Ok. That isn't at issue in this thread.

Maybe most of the people in the world are busy feeding their families and not being killed in wars and such and don't have the luxury of time you do to study hermanutics, philosophy, history etc. You are making the bible inaccessible to a large portion to the world if this is a basis for understanding.

Again, none of this has to be discussed and won't be here. However, do keep in mind that Hermeneutics is BIGGER than the bible, in fact, it is an entire field applicable to just about anything that involves human cognition, communication and understanding. Don't confuse Hermeneutics with Biblical Hermeneutics. They're not the same thing, and for the purposes of this discussion, only the first of these needs to be considered to be a 'rational' part of human deliberation.

So, there's a lot of things, and not just the bible, that are difficult for just everyone and anyone to access. Let's keep that point straight, too.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This can be dealt with somewhere else, but not in this thread. You know why don't you? There's at least two reasons!

I disagree, but for the sake of this thread, it doesn't really matter that I disagree on this point since this whole thread isn't focused on defending the Bible (and can't be here) but rather upon the qualities of merit--even competing claims to merit--inherent to the diverse ethical systems, past or present, that aver to state some support and definition for Human Rights. Are we clear?

It is clear you don't want to talk about it.

Again, none of this has to be discussed and won't be here. However, do keep in mind that Hermeneutics is BIGGER than the bible, in fact, it is an entire field applicable to just about anything that involves human cognition, communication and understanding. Don't confuse Hermeneutics with Biblical Hermeneutics. They're not the same thing, and for the purposes of this discussion, only the first of these needs to be considered to be a 'rational' part of human deliberation.

Can anyone pick up the bible read it and get the correct meaning from it? The evidence says no.

So, there's a lot of things, and not just the bible, that are difficult for just everyone and anyone to access. Let's keep that point straight, too.

None of those other things threatens us with eternal torment.