Which is why I'm on the fence, stupid. I clearly said I haven't concluded that individual rights are objective... I definately lean towards subjective by a wide margin.
Why do liberals insist on subjective morality being laws?
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
Which is why I'm on the fence, stupid. I clearly said I haven't concluded that individual rights are objective... I definately lean towards subjective by a wide margin.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Oh please... don't become a big-L Libertarian. You'll kick yourself in the head a year from now. Becoming one is good instruction on why you wouldn't want to be one, however.
There's nothing wrong with protecting individual rights, and believing in free market and a free society, but the libertarian just go crazy with everything, getting pissed off at the merest taxes.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Actually, to tell you the truth US the social programs I'd support may very well be bigger than the ones you would. If I were in power, I'd certainly cut government, but I wouldn't get much further than down to 1.5-2 trillion or so, mostly from cutting out older social programs and such that didn't do much, and cutting out subsidies.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Fence? What fence? There is no fence to sit on.
"Rights" -- all rights -- are entirely subjective. They exist only in our collective, human reality. You can strip a human being down to the very particles that make up his or her atoms and yet you will not find one single iota of "right" anywhere in the corpse.
You have the rights that society grants you. Period. End of statement.
Yeah that's a big thing I have always had against libertarians, they are often hypocritical but then use some bizarre logic jump to suggest that life, liberty, and property are established, universal, objective rights.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
They can be established and universal without being objective.
well that's not how I meant it.. I meant objective.
and I'm not sure you could come up with any universal right.
The ban on "murder" is only based on consensus, not as a "universal" principle.
Millions of people consider it fair game to murder Iraqi shia, Congalese tribesmen, Sudanese villagers, and European Jews.
Many would consider capital punishment to be state sanctioned murder.
I would say every day in Iraq, there are thousands and thousands of sectarian militia and insurgents, who would find that justified. In fact, they go beyond that and brutally torture fellow iraqis to death.
And not just in iraq. Throughout the world, there are militias and other groups who find murder and torture totally acceptable.
Like I said, there is a consesus that murder is immoral and never justified. But, its not universal.
The governments of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and thousands of the soldiers and security forces quite openly engaged in mass murder.
They didn't wear masks.
There are tons of examples of both governments and individuals thinking they are justified in murder.
Luckily, a broad (but not universal) consensus against murder keeps them in check (most of the time)
That's a pretty idiotic statement on many levels:
#1) What the hell would be the purpose of the FDA if their findings weren't binding?
#2) Do you really think pharmaceutical companies, food companies, biotechs, etc have your best interest at heart when they've invested hundreds and millions into a particular product?
If you believe the answer to #2 is yes, then you have a shit load growing up to do. If anything, the FDA has been too laissez-faire about a lot of things, but I won't hijack the thread.
Most in Nazi Germany also knew they were doing wrong.
So we are in agreement that the ban on murder is not a univeral value, but a broad consensus, that keeps those who justify murder in check.
by the laws of the universe, anytime.
If you are trying to push a product it may still be in your best interest to have the FDA 'approve' you or give you a good rating. The MPAA rating isn't binding, but that doesn't keep studios from aiming to get certain ratings, they'll even cut scenes if they have to.
#2, do biotech companies want their product killing all their customers? Do they want people to not have confidence in their product? Do they want other biotech and food companies to get a leg up on them and be seen as more responsible? No.