Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Moral absolutism as compared to the advancement of technology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 76460892" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>But your position is irrelevant to what my point was. My point was that the principles for HR has been around for a long time well before UN HR. Then you said</p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">They had not been acknowledged before, that was the problem</span></em></p><p></p><p>I posted support showing that the principles of equality and respect for which HR is based on had been acknowledged before. The fact that they became codified doesn't mean these principles had not been around for a long time. </p><p></p><p> I wasn't talking about metaphysics. I was talking about logic. Applying the same logic you used for how "morals have changed therefore morals cannot be objective". Applied to science it would mean scientific facts/determinations have changed therefore scientific facts/determinations cannot be objective. </p><p></p><p> Then they are in breach of Human Rights and suffer the consequences. But there is nothing to force any nation to conform as we have seen in the world. </p><p></p><p>Morality is a rational enterprise so if the head of a nation refuse to be moral or are incapable of being rational then that is their position. We can only have a solid and united basis to declare that these nations are wrong and are doing something immoral.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76460892, member: 342064"] But your position is irrelevant to what my point was. My point was that the principles for HR has been around for a long time well before UN HR. Then you said [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]They had not been acknowledged before, that was the problem[/COLOR][/I] I posted support showing that the principles of equality and respect for which HR is based on had been acknowledged before. The fact that they became codified doesn't mean these principles had not been around for a long time. I wasn't talking about metaphysics. I was talking about logic. Applying the same logic you used for how "morals have changed therefore morals cannot be objective". Applied to science it would mean scientific facts/determinations have changed therefore scientific facts/determinations cannot be objective. Then they are in breach of Human Rights and suffer the consequences. But there is nothing to force any nation to conform as we have seen in the world. Morality is a rational enterprise so if the head of a nation refuse to be moral or are incapable of being rational then that is their position. We can only have a solid and united basis to declare that these nations are wrong and are doing something immoral. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Moral absolutism as compared to the advancement of technology
Top
Bottom