Name something good religion has caused

AnyOldIron said:
You have every right to maim and kill, however the society too has potential and realizing that as a whole we have created those contracts, it is with this that we have created a measure, what we call ethics. Together as a whole society lends value to action.

You may exercise your right to maim and kill, however society reserves the right to judge your actions and thus place you in prison, or even value your potential as less than positive and often end that potential entirely in many cases.

So, it is a contract between the individual and society, with corresponding rights and duties? I have rights, but also duties that match them?

But where does that leave those amongst society who cannot understand the contract, who cannot exercise the duties and thus recognise the rights? The mentally ill, those with learning disabilities, the senile, the young? Are they, as I said above, simply existing under the compassion of those with the capacity to reason?

There is a large degree of retribution in the ethics you mentioned above, the killer being killed by society. How do two wrong acts make a right?
Click to expand...

Dude, your "education" has made you stupid.
 
In those same 'rights' of society we recognize their rights as well, and give them the best possible care. As we become more understanding of such illness it increases, not decreases, in care we provide. Responding that they are not "people" or "a person" and thus relagating them to animal is not a response of a modern society.

But surely this comes under a Duty of Compassion, rather than the contractual rights brought about by duties and corresponding rights...

Lets take this to the very beginning... From where do you consider these rights of society come from? Are they value based, originating from an idea that all life has value, and thus rights originate from this value? Are they contractually based?

I am not being obtuse, just want to be very clear about where you consider rights to come from.

It isn't retribution, that is vengeance. Vengeance happens on a personal level, a decision that you are more detrimental to the rights of others than you are a benefit doesn't mean that it is from retribution such punishment is meted. The Justice System is not made to provide retribution.

Yet we can establish that killing is morally wrong through a priori analysis of your statement. If it is wrong for an individual to kill, wouldn't it be hypocritical for society to kill as well?

If it is on the basis that killing an individual would reduce the suffering of society because of the killing that they would conduct, are you exercising negative utilitarianism?
 
Ass, I'm bored of squabbling with you. If you come up with a reasoned argument, then we'll talk. Until then, go play in the sand pit...
 
AnyOldIron said:
But surely this comes under a Duty of Compassion, rather than the contractual rights brought about by duties and corresponding rights...

Lets take this to the very beginning... From where do you consider these rights of society come from? Are they value based, originating from an idea that all life has value, and thus rights originate from this value? Are they contractually based?

I am not being obtuse, just want to be very clear about where you consider rights to come from.
Click to expand...
"Rights" are the individual's ability to effect the outside world, what you call "natural rights". Hence my suggestion that you have a right to assert yourself onto others, but that society also has a right to judge that action as negative and thus act to stop you. The contract is the recognition of certain rights that "will not be infringed except in specific circumstances". This didn't take any rights, or change them in any way. You still have the right to do such things, it will just have a negative effect on your other freedoms if your action is judged as negative.

You have every right to simply not pay taxes, but society judges that to be negative action and if done consistently will likely place you in jail.


Yet we can establish that killing is morally wrong through a priori analysis of your statement. If it is wrong for an individual to kill, wouldn't it be hypocritical for society to kill as well?

If it is on the basis that killing an individual would reduce the suffering of society because of the killing that they would conduct, are you exercising negative utilitarianism?
Click to expand...

Killing, per se, is not morally wrong. If an attacker is coming at you with a knife to murder you, it is not morally wrong to kill that attacker in your own defense. There are any number of situations we can determine to be a net positive action for society, or even for the individual, that involve killing another. Justified war would be one, self-defense another. In this case society has judged an individual, by their action, to be detrimental to society and that there is a net positive in their end.

It would not be 'hypocritical' for society to determine when such circumstances exist because it is the very reason societies exist.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Ass, I'm bored of squabbling with you. If you come up with a reasoned argument, then we'll talk. Until then, go play in the sand pit...
Click to expand...


So you're slinking away with your tail between your legs. I see. How cowardly. you can't condescend to people who are your intellectual superiors. You can try, but it just doesn't work out.
 
"Rights" are the individual's ability to effect the outside world, what you call "natural rights". Hence my suggestion that you have a right to assert yourself onto others, but that society also has a right to judge that action as negative and thus act to stop you. The contract is the recognition of certain rights that "will not be infringed except in specific circumstances". This didn't take any rights, or change them in any way. You still have the right to do such things, it will just have a negative effect on your other freedoms if your action is judged as negative.

You have every right to simply not pay taxes, but society judges that to be negative action and if done consistently will likely place you in jail.

So natural rights are, summed up, the capability and will to carry out an act? Much akin to what Rousseau described as 'natural freedom'.

Wouldn't this result in society having greater rights than the individual, on the basis that it has greater capability and will to act?

Isn't this the old adage, might makes right?

Please clarify if I am interpreting incorrectly....
 
AnyOldIron said:
"Rights" are the individual's ability to effect the outside world, what you call "natural rights". Hence my suggestion that you have a right to assert yourself onto others, but that society also has a right to judge that action as negative and thus act to stop you. The contract is the recognition of certain rights that "will not be infringed except in specific circumstances". This didn't take any rights, or change them in any way. You still have the right to do such things, it will just have a negative effect on your other freedoms if your action is judged as negative.

You have every right to simply not pay taxes, but society judges that to be negative action and if done consistently will likely place you in jail.

So natural rights are, summed up, the capability and will to carry out an act? Much akin to what Rousseau described as 'natural freedom'.

Wouldn't this result in society having greater rights than the individual, on the basis that it has greater capability and will to act?

Isn't this the old adage, might makes right?

Please clarify if I am interpreting incorrectly....
Click to expand...
It has the ability to do so, but consensus trends differently. Those stuck in such are considered "backward" to most modern societies who have advanced past that area. Thus evolves society and creates new experiments such as Federalism, and protection of the individual over the majority enforced by those rights exercised by society. To present it as such simplistic, "This means that might makes right." ignores many of the points I made earlier about that evolution of ideas and how society itself changes as it advances those ideas.
 
Killing, per se, is not morally wrong. If an attacker is coming at you with a knife to murder you, it is not morally wrong to kill that attacker in your own defense. There are any number of situations we can determine to be a net positive action for society, or even for the individual, that involve killing another. Justified war would be one, self-defense another. In this case society has judged an individual, by their action, to be detrimental to society and that there is a net positive in their end.

So justice is based on negative utilitarianism, that which brings about the least suffering? Doesn't that lead to a possibility of tyrannical consequences, when what is deemed to bring about the least suffering could dangerously overrule the individual?

And it is intentional, the consequences (ie dead individual) matter less than the intentions? This can also lead to tyrannical consequences. Hate to use a proverb, but the road to hell is paved with intentions...

Those advocates of positive liberty (Stalin, Mao etc), for example, could have hold the best of intentions when implimenting measures for the improvement of society, yet the consequences are negative.

It would not be 'hypocritical' for society to determine when such circumstances exist because it is the very reason societies exist.

Hypocritical is an emotive word, I didn't mean it as such. Should have used contradiction...
 
AnyOldIron said:
So justice is based on negative utilitarianism, that which brings about the least suffering? Doesn't that lead to a possibility of tyrannical consequences, when what is deemed to bring about the least suffering could dangerously overrule the individual?
Click to expand...


Yes, however, as society advances it creates even more protection of the individual. This has been displayed throughout history. At the point where tyranny has overwhelmed the individual to the point that individuals will no longer stand it, revolutions prevails.

And it is intentional, the consequences (ie dead individual) matter less than the intentions? This can also lead to tyrannical consequences. Hate to use a proverb, but the road to hell is paved with intentions...
Click to expand...

It is, and once again this advances evolution within society. Societies change as they see the consequences of their actions. Reasoned response. This separates the action of man from those of animals. One can only understand the consequences with such reason.

Those advocates of positive liberty (Stalin, Mao etc), for example, could have hold the best of intentions when implimenting measures for the improvement of society, yet the consequences are negative.
Click to expand...
And hence society evolved here too. They were unable to continue in perpetuity that which goes against the nature of man. Rarely does man say, well this would be good for nobody but let's do it anyway.

Hypocritical is an emotive word, I didn't mean it as such. Should have used contradiction...
Click to expand...

And still this ignores the evolution of ideas. When one finds 'contradiction' in action vs. idea they work towards change. New ideas are formed, then implemented. If such action is detrimental then they too create new ideas. Society is only the extension of the individual. Within each individual there are many warring ideas, action is selected by the reason of the individual.
 
It has the ability to do so, but consensus trends differently. Those stuck in such are considered "backward" to most modern societies who have advanced past that area. Thus evolves society and creates new experiments such as Federalism, and protection of the individual over the majority enforced by those rights exercised by society. To present it as such simplistic, "This means that might makes right." ignores many of the points I made earlier about that evolution if ideas and how society itself changes as it advances those ideas.

'Might means right' might seem simplistic for modern societies, but boiling it down, is the basis of rights (in the interpretation that you presented).

An individual's main right is to do as it's will dictates, dependent on capability. Society has a corresponding right, adjudicated by that society's government, to do as its will dictates according to capability on behalf of the society itself. If the society has a will and capacity to go to war, for example, it has that right.

In a way, I agree with this, however, I wouldn't describe it as rights. It is freedom. Freedom is the ability to do as one's will dictates providing one has the capability.

Would you not consider this to simply be freedom?
 
Anyold is lying, anti-human monster who twists words to degrade humanity. He's a sick fuck.

Hey, adults having an adult conversation. Go troll elsewhere moron....
 
Damo, gonna take a while on this one, got a meeting I can't get out of and I wanna take time to consider your answer...

Will reply by the end of the day or tomorrow morning....
 
AnyOldIron said:
It has the ability to do so, but consensus trends differently. Those stuck in such are considered "backward" to most modern societies who have advanced past that area. Thus evolves society and creates new experiments such as Federalism, and protection of the individual over the majority enforced by those rights exercised by society. To present it as such simplistic, "This means that might makes right." ignores many of the points I made earlier about that evolution if ideas and how society itself changes as it advances those ideas.

'Might means right' might seem simplistic for modern societies, but boiling it down, is the basis of rights (in the interpretation that you presented).

An individual's main right is to do as it's will dictates, dependent on capability. Society has a corresponding right, adjudicated by that society's government, to do as its will dictates according to capability on behalf of the society itself. If the society has a will and capacity to go to war, for example, it has that right.

In a way, I agree with this, however, I wouldn't describe it as rights. It is freedom. Freedom is the ability to do as one's will dictates providing one has the capability.

Would you not consider this to simply be freedom?
Click to expand...

I would consider it freedom, however, rights and responsibilities as well. I believe these to be almost entirely interchangeable.
 
Damocles said:
I would consider it freedom, however, rights and responsibilities as well. I believe these to be almost entirely interchangeable.
Click to expand...
Oh, now there's some grist for the wheel. This mill is doing quite well without my intereference, however: I'll leave it to the two of you to thrash it out. I'm keen to see his response. :)
 
Yeah, gonna be stuck in a meeting til 5.30 so will print off the thread, formulate a response tonight and then post tomorrow morning..

Good debate....
 
Society has a will? Does a society have rights independant of the rights of individuals within that society?

From my thinking society exists solely to protect the rights of individuals, and is illegitimate to the extent that it facilitates the violation of those rights.

Does "might make right" in terms of a society protecting it's imagined rights?

Anyold is an elitist who feels he has the right to substitute his own hatefulness for societal will, and call it "concensus".

Does concensus make right? and is concensus SO right that individual rights may be subjugated to it? Democracy can be dangerous, when individualist morality is degraded, as it has been by hateful elitists, pushing their satanic poison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top