Religious Privileges versus Human Rights

• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-01-29 00:35

  Quote from Phunkie;1192716:

  I believe there are absolute wrongs and absolute wrongs. There's been some disagreement in history about what's wrong or right, and some values definitely change as we go along, but I absolutely believe that killing is always wrong. Stealing is always wrong. Cheating on your spouse is always wrong.
  
  No matter what situation you find yourself in or what condition, it's always wrong to do these things. Killing is wrong, even if you have to do it to wage war or defend yourself from a threat. Stealing is always wrong, even if you're poor and are starving and have nothing to eat. Cheating on your spouse is wrong, even if they abuse you and beat you. Of course, sometimes we do what we have to or to get away from even more trouble, but that doesn't change what's wrong.
  
  I believe in the Golden Rule, which says, treat people the way you want to be treated, love others the way you want to be loved. And whether you're religious or not, you find that rule everywhere, in every religion, in every political system on Earth. I believe that this is because there is an innate conscience within us which pushes us to love others naturally and do the right thing.
  
  Christians, like myself, believe that since we were created in God's image, we were made to love just like He loves us, but that's another topic for another day.
  
  It gets difficult when it comes to controversial things like abortion and homosexuality, because there's so much hatred and fear and disagreement among different religions and religious denominations. It's hard to tell people to mind their own business when it comes to society and religion, because for most of these people, religion is their life. You have to understand that and find a way to convince these people not that we should keep things separate, because they can't, but that perhaps their own religion doesn't see things as strict as people often interpret things.

  
  
  What's wrong with killing? humans kill animals everyday, animals kill other animals, the entire ecosystem operates on killing. Part of the reason why people form communities and groups in early human history is to provide each other with protection against killing.
  
  Stealing is connected to the concept of ownership, which is non-existent outside society, if you are stranded on an island, would you care if the fruit you pick belongs to a money living in the tree?
  
  Our morals are very delicate things, society gives us alternatives to law of jungle when it comes to living, but that doesn't make the law of jungle wrong. In fact if society breaks down, in order to protect so called "properties" killing or threat of death will be necessary at all time.
• Justified wrote on 2014-01-29 02:10

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1192721:

  What's wrong with killing? humans kill animals everyday, animals kill other animals, the entire ecosystem operates on killing. Part of the reason why people form communities and groups in early human history is to provide each other with protection against killing.
  
  Stealing is connected to the concept of ownership, which is non-existent outside society, if you are stranded on an island, would you care if the fruit you pick belongs to a money living in the tree?
  
  Our morals are very delicate things, society gives us alternatives to law of jungle when it comes to living, but that doesn't make the law of jungle wrong. In fact if society breaks down, in order to protect so called "properties" killing or threat of death will be necessary at all time.

  
  
  P1 - Why would you need protection from something that is good/right?
  P2 - More like would you take the fruit out of the monkey's hand, not the tree.
  P3 - And whether something is created/unnatural or necessary/unnecessary, has nothing to do with good/bad/right/wrong.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-01-29 02:33

  Quote from Justified;1192766:

  P1 - Why would you need protection from something that is good/right?
  P2 - More like would you take the fruit out of the monkey's hand, not the tree.
  P3 - And whether something is created/unnatural or necessary/unnecessary, has nothing to do with good/bad/right/wrong.

  
  
  1. Killing isn't inherently right or wrong, it's simply something lifeforms do in order to avoid death, it is preferable to live than die, but that has no right or wrong in it of itself.
  
  2. Challenge the example is meaningless if you cannot refute the actual point behind it.
  
  3. True, but real right or wrong only exist in logic, so none of what we discussed here are right in that sense.
• Justified wrote on 2014-01-29 03:01

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1192773:

  1. Killing isn't inherently right or wrong, it's simply something lifeforms do in order to avoid death, it is preferable to live than die, but that has no right or wrong in it of itself.
  
  2. Challenge the example is meaningless if you cannot refute the actual point behind it.
  
  3. True, but real right or wrong only exist in logic, so none of what we discussed here are right in that sense.

  
  
  1. Then what is your standard for right/good? What inherently makes anything right/good? Or if you're saying nothing has an inherent alignment (a reasonable statement), then you should state the entire idea and not direct it at one specific act.
  
  2. I didn't say it's meaningless. "The wild" is communal, animals don't say "this is my tree" they say "I am living in this tree." They may mark territories and defend against intrusion, but that's like people spreading out their stuff on a public table and being cautious when personal space is invaded, it has nothing to do with owning a location.
  Taking food from where they live is not the same as taking food that they own. Which is why I said stealing is more like taking it out of an animal's mouth, not it's tree. It's more of a dick move to take the food somebody/something is actively eating from them.
  
  3. That's a bold statement saying that things that are logical are pretty much the same as imaginary.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-01-29 03:20

  Quote from Justified;1192779:

  1. Then what is your standard for right/good? What inherently makes anything right/good? Or if you're saying nothing has an inherent alignment (a reasonable statement), then you should state the entire idea and not direct it at one specific act.
  
  2. I didn't say it's meaningless. "The wild" is communal, animals don't say "this is my tree" they say "I am living in this tree." They may mark territories and defend against intrusion, but that's like people spreading out their stuff on a public table and being cautious when personal space is invaded, it has nothing to do with owning a location.
  Taking food from where they live is not the same as taking food that they own. Which is why I said stealing is more like taking it out of an animal's mouth, not it's tree. It's more of a dick move to take the food somebody/something is actively eating from them.
  
  3. That's a bold statement saying that things that are logical are pretty much the same as imaginary.

  
  
  
  1. I have no standard for good or bad, I do what's in my own interest, in this case, killing would not be in my interest as my survival depends on society's acceptance of me as a functional member, that's the reason why I don't break laws.
  
  2. What I am saying is, ownership itself only exist when more than one party is involved, if you are the only living being on earth then there'd be no reason to claim anything as yours because there'd be no concept of others'. Society teaches us stealing is wrong because part of the reasons we live in a society is because society allow us to claim something as ours and actively protects others from claiming these "properties". But this moral doesn't apply if nothing actively discourages us to steal, the only thing would be the value you develop in your upbringing.
  
  3. What do you mean? When I say logic, I mean something like "If A is true and B is true then A and B are true" "If X is Y, if Y is Z, then X is Z" along those lines. What we are discussing are more complex than that, so there are no certain right or wrong, at most you can say is the argument is cogent.
• Justified wrote on 2014-01-29 03:40

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1192784:

  1. I have no standard for good or bad, I do what's in my own interest, in this case, killing would not be in my interest as my survival depends on society's acceptance of me as a functional member, that's the reason why I don't break laws.
  
  2. What I am saying is, ownership itself only exist when more than one party is involved, if you are the only living being on earth then there'd be no reason to claim anything as yours because there'd be no concept of others'. Society teaches us stealing is wrong because part of the reasons we live in a society is because society allow us to claim something as ours and actively protects others from claiming these "properties". But this moral doesn't apply if nothing actively discourages us to steal, the only thing would be the value you develop in your upbringing.
  
  3. What do you mean? When I say logic, I mean something like "If A is true and B is true then A and B are true" "If X is Y, if Y is Z, then X is Z" along those lines. What we are discussing are more complex than that, so there are no certain right or wrong, at most you can say is the argument is cogent.

  
  
  1. If you don't define anything as good or bad then you can't fairly point out specific acts as good, bad, not-good, or not-bad. Only the lack of any definition.
  
  2. If I was alone stranded on an island, I would still consider the shelter I build as mine.
  And "good" people don't need society, laws, or upbringing to tell them what is right or wrong, so I don't accept most of what you said.
  
  3. That's sort of like gravity being a theory, when for intents and purposes it's a fact.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-01-29 04:28

  Quote from Justified;1192793:

  1. If you don't define anything as good or bad then you can't fairly point out specific acts as good, bad, not-good, or not-bad. Only the lack of any definition.
  
  2. If I was alone stranded on an island, I would still consider the shelter I build as mine.
  And "good" people don't need society, laws, or upbringing to tell them what is right or wrong, so I don't accept most of what you said.
  
  3. That's sort of like gravity being a theory, when for intents and purposes it's a fact.

  
  
  
  1. You are using a different definition as me. The good in my case means beneficial to me, the good in your case means something that's right regardless whether it benefits circumstances.
  
  2. You are still operating under the assumption that morality can exist without another party. You will only assume something is "yours" if there is the concept of "others" to begin with. If you are alone, then there isn't another person in existence, thus there will be no concept of ownership.
  
  3. I don't feel like this point should be talked about any further, all I am saying is the right or wrong definition used in this context is different from the one you used in your first reply.
• Maenad wrote on 2014-01-29 05:58
  Is it okay to brutally murder one person if that brutal murder specifically saves one million people from dying?
  Is it okay to let one million people die just so you don't have to brutally murder a single person yourself?
  
  Morals are not rigid. They cannot be explicitly defined. Morals become very blurred the instant you tack on any sort of condition to them. Morals are totally subjective, and it's up to each person to come up with their own. The only morals that we all usually share are the very few that are created by our instinct, such as the aversion to harming another human - doing so reduces the odds of survival.
• Phunkie wrote on 2014-01-29 08:03

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1192721:

  What's wrong with killing? humans kill animals everyday, animals kill other animals, the entire ecosystem operates on killing. Part of the reason why people form communities and groups in early human history is to provide each other with protection against killing.
  
  Stealing is connected to the concept of ownership, which is non-existent outside society, if you are stranded on an island, would you care if the fruit you pick belongs to a money living in the tree?
  
  Our morals are very delicate things, society gives us alternatives to law of jungle when it comes to living, but that doesn't make the law of jungle wrong. In fact if society breaks down, in order to protect so called "properties" killing or threat of death will be necessary at all time.

  
  
  Killing each other is wrong. If you've noticed, very, very few animals actually kill and eat each other's same species. It's something that's instated even in natural law. What's wrong with killing? If you killed my son, I'd be devastated, I'd be so sad. That's not loving your neighbor; it's absolutely wrong.
  
  

  Quote from Maenad;1192848:

  Is it okay to brutally murder one person if that brutal murder specifically saves one million people from dying?
  Is it okay to let one million people die just so you don't have to brutally murder a single person yourself?
  
  Morals are not rigid. They cannot be explicitly defined. Morals become very blurred the instant you tack on any sort of condition to them. Morals are totally subjective, and it's up to each person to come up with their own. The only morals that we all usually share are the very few that are created by our instinct, such as the aversion to harming another human - doing so reduces the odds of survival.

  
  
  Whether you kill someone to save another, it's still wrong to kill. But as humans, sometimes we have to decide on the lesser evil.
  
  
  
  One thing: you can say anything you want about absolute morals and whatnot, but we absolutely need them, otherwise it won't make sense to arrest anyone for committing crimes, for killing, for stealing, for raping. Whether you believe we made up these rules to govern society or they were something given to us from above, we need morals to guide us.
  
  Without a sense or a direction of what's good or what's bad, you can't live. I mean, somebody could just kill you and it'd be absolutely okay.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-01-29 13:38

  Quote from Phunkie;1192871:

  Killing each other is wrong. If you've noticed, very, very few animals actually kill and eat each other's same species. It's something that's instated even in natural law. What's wrong with killing? If you killed my son, I'd be devastated, I'd be so sad. That's not loving your neighbor; it's absolutely wrong.
  

  
  
  But what you are saying operates on a bias which differentiates species. Killing is killing, is killing another specie really different from kill your specie? Yes you can only relate to something similar to your experience but the act of killing is unbiased. Animals that don't kill their own tend to live in packs which means there is some basic social structures same as ours that discourage killing pack members in exchange for the safety that comes with number.
  
  Killing is a stupid thing for humans to do because we are basically co-dependent at this point, it's unfeasible to try live outside society, and it's self serving to act according to the rules set by society, but really there isn't any inherent goodness in those rules, they are just there like terms of a contract you sign since you were born.
• 800mans wrote on 2014-01-30 07:51
  The moment one says an act is wrong or right you're already referencing that act to some human-made code (whether written by a party or through conscience/belief) to determine if its wrong or right. So if we were to judge just the act of killing (ending the life of some multi-cellular living organism) without any *human bias*, then there isn't really a clear right or wrong. Rather there isn't a right or wrong at all. You can't label it. It's just killing. We perceive and make sense of killing through logic/emotions/physical sense/w/e but by itself killing is just killing.
  
  But then if we take the discussion in this direction we'll likely end up into places such as: what's the point/purpose of life? What is living? Does the world exist or is it just created in our heads?