What is the basis of human rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Precisely! To use Kant’s terminology, there would be no categorical imperatives. Rights would be merely human conventions that can be ignored when convenient…
Click to expand...
As they so often are, even in countries where human rights are codified.
 
aclausen said:
Again, you seem to be putting forth this notion that H. sapiens is fundamentally a solitary psychopathic animal that is taught cooperation, and that simply is not so. We are hardwired, like most of our closest relatives, to congregate into social structures.
Click to expand...
Hardwiring doesn’t prevent sceptics, hedonists, anarchists and criminals from being not only uncooperative but also antisocial egoists!
 
tonyrey said:
Hardwiring doesn’t prevent sceptics, hedonists, anarchists and criminals from being not only uncooperative but also antisocial egoists!
Click to expand...
Well of course it doesn’t, any more than religious fervor prevents criminals from being uncooperative and antisocial egotists. Those that, whether by hardwiring in the brain (sociopaths, psychopaths and others suffering the more extreme forms of narcissism), tend to ignore, or worse, take advantage of the social mores of the societies in which they live.

Belief in God is no sure guide to good conduct.
 
aclausen said:
As they so often are, even in countries where human rights are codified.
Click to expand...
Which demonstrates that they have no rational foundation! When people believe human rights are merely conventions there is no reason why they shouldn’t be ignored and violated…
 
tonyrey said:
Which demonstrates that they have no rational foundation! When people believe human rights are merely conventions there is no reason why they shouldn’t be ignored and violated…
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, there is, because in general those who behave in a sufficiently anti-social manner will be punished. Second of all, as I said, that hardwiring means most of us are programmed to behave within specific social rules, which is why peer pressure is generally the surest guide of good conduct.
 
aclausen said:
They’re certainly doing something wrong from our perspective, and indeed, the Nazis were even doing evil things from their own perspective, which is why they put so much effort in the dying days of the war into concealing what they had been up to.

But even look at the Church, burning poor old Giordano Bruno alive for the crime of practicing his apparently universal liberties… Except of course that concept didn’t actual exist in Bruno’s time.

Of course, I get the uncomfortable feeling that a few people out there wish heretics and blasphemers could still be “dealt with”, so I’m not sure the entirety of Christendom is convinced punishing for denying the Trinity is actually wrong, even if they think lighting a fire under them isn’t the best way to prosecute such a vile crime.
Click to expand...
What individual Christians believe has no bearing on the truth of Christianity…
 
tonyrey said:
He is taking atheism to its logical conclusion: man-made rules are arbitrary and have no **rational **justification.
Click to expand...
This is not the logical conclusion of atheism. Why is it that certain kinds of Christians seem so keen to violate one of their most basic tenets, not to bear false witness, because either out of sheer ignorance or bigotry, they just so much want to be superior to someone who views the world differently than they do.

Do you think God will love you a little more because you treat some group of people like subhumans? Is that where your faith leads you?
 
aclausen said:
Well, first of all, there is, because in general those who behave in a sufficiently anti-social manner will be punished. Second of all, as I said, that hardwiring means most of us are programmed to behave within specific social rules, which is why peer pressure is generally the surest guide of good conduct.
Click to expand...
Only superficially. Anyone who is determined to get to the top at all costs will just make use of other people’s lack of initiative. Many such people exist regardless of their upbringing. They are called “psychopaths” but it is not a disease; it is a cold-blooded decision to live for themselves rather than others.
 
aclausen said:
This is not the logical conclusion of atheism. Why is it that certain kinds of Christians seem so keen to violate one of their most basic tenets, not to bear false witness, because either out of sheer ignorance or bigotry, they just so much want to be superior to someone who views the world differently than they do.

Do you think God will love you a little more because you treat some group of people like subhumans? Is that where your faith leads you?
Click to expand...
What is the logical conclusion of atheism? Does it imply that everyone should love one another? If so why?
 
tonyrey said:
Only superficially. Anyone who is determined to get to the top at all costs will just make use of other people’s lack of initiative. Many such people exist regardless of their upbringing. They are called “psychopaths” but it is not a disease; it is a cold-blooded decision to live for themselves rather than others.
Click to expand...
There is a large body of evidence that shows that sociopaths and psychopaths are indeed wired differently than other people. I’m sorry that neuroscience and psychology don’t support your view that we can just turn off our empathy and socialization because we decide one day we don’t believe in God.
 
tonyrey said:
What is the logical conclusion of atheism? Does it imply that everyone should love one another? If so why?
Click to expand...
Can you explain why you think there should be a logical conclusion to atheism at all? I get it, you want to feel very superior and you want people to believe that is because you are a Christian. But if you think you’re proving it by basically asserting that someone like myself, who does not believe in God, is some sort of malignant and antisocial monster, then all you’re doing is proving that faith in God is no guarantor of decent and fairminded behavior.
 
tonyrey said:
You need to explain why those who fail to live up to Christ’s teaching are genuine Christians…
Click to expand...
You need to explain why sinners aren’t Christians, since it is a basic tenet of Christianity that all are sinners.
 
aclausen said:
Can you explain why you think there should be a logical conclusion to atheism at all? I get it, you want to feel very superior and you want people to believe that is because you are a Christian. But if you think you’re proving it by basically asserting that someone like myself, who does not believe in God, is some sort of malignant and antisocial monster, then all you’re doing is proving that faith in God is no guarantor of decent and fairminded behavior.
Click to expand...
The logical conclusion to atheism is that there is no reason why we exist, life is a freak occurrence and morality is merely a set of human conventions with no binding obligations.
 
tonyrey said:
The logical conclusion to atheism is that there is no reason why we exist, life is a freak occurrence and morality is merely a set of human conventions with no binding obligations.
Click to expand...
No, that’s your claim about atheism. I have no reason to accept your claim, since it’s essentially based on your own biases. All you’re doing is confirming to me that there is a certain kind of Christian whose pride is great, and ability or desire to understand others is utterly lacking. But I refuse to be defined by your lack of imagination.
 
aclausen said:
Can you explain why you think there should be a logical conclusion to atheism at all? I get it, you want to feel very superior and you want people to believe that is because you are a Christian. But if you think you’re proving it by basically asserting that someone like myself, who does not believe in God, is some sort of malignant and antisocial monster, then all you’re doing is proving that faith in God is no guarantor of decent and fairminded behavior.
Click to expand...
Ad hominems are notoriously illogical!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top