Name something good religion has caused

Just to recap.

Morality, far from being completely arbitrary and relative, is based on observation through human history of which sorts of behavior lead to survival and which lead to failure. And darla is a wackjob.
 
Which is what a right is: A freedom to act.

So you would state that Hitler had a right to exterminate Europe's Jews?

If a right is merely the freedom to act, the the notion of rights loses all meaning, I have the right to go to the toilet, simply because I can, for example.

And if a government prevents my freedom to act, yet I still have the right, then a right cannot be simply the freedom to act, because I have lost the freedom to act yet retained the right. A right must be more than simply freedom to act.
 
No, you haven't. You're made the assinine leap that since we put additional qualifiers on certain actions which affects their acceptability, that therefore morality is relative.

Oh come on, you aren't trying now. If a moral law is absolute, then it cannot have qualifiers, because it is absolute.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Which is what a right is: A freedom to act.

So you would state that Hitler had a right to exterminate Europe's Jews?

If a right is merely the freedom to act, the the notion of rights loses all meaning, I have the right to go to the toilet, simply because I can, for example.

And if a government prevents my freedom to act, yet I still have the right, then a right cannot be simply the freedom to act, because I have lost the freedom to act yet retained the right. A right must be more than simply freedom to act.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. What I speak of is reality, not a promotion of an ideal. A right can be taken or infringed by other claims to rights. You keep bringing up Hitler, like it makes my premise fall. Almost every society on the planet came to inform Hitler that we were not going to allow that particular right. Hence it is called a "World War". Thankfully the rest of the world beat them in their cause to promote such a societal ideal.

As society progresses it almost always leads to a gaurantee of even more freedom to act on your own will, we call it a "right", but that is what it is, a consensus of what freedoms society is going to allow.

This also ignores the concept of ethics that I also presented before. Society rejected Hitler's assumption of rights to this effect based on those aforementioned ethics. It should be noted that whether the ethics proceeded from a strict system (some christians) or a more mutable system (buddhism/atheism) all found this action to be abominable. A rare agreement of almost all humanity was created from the great harm caused by Hitler.

It is too bad that society agreed to allow Stalin to continue his reign of terror while disallowing another's.
 
No, it isn't. What I speak of is reality, not a promotion of an ideal. A right can be taken or infringed by other claims to rights. You keep bringing up Hitler, like it makes my premise fall. Almost every society on the planet came to inform Hitler that we were not going to allow that particular right. Hence it is called a "World War". Thankfully the rest of the world beat them in their cause to promote such a societal ideal.

But it was still Hitler's right to exterminate the Jews because rights are the freedom to act, and Hitler had that freedom. He only stopped having the right, under these conditions, when he no longer had the freedom to act, ie through the actions of the allies?

I am using Hitler as a reductio per absurdum argument.

Do you agree that under your definition, there is no difference between carrying out an act, and having the right to carry out that act. I have the right to do anything, provided I am free (able) to do so?

As society progresses it almost always leads to a gaurantee of even more freedom to act on your own will, we call it a "right", but that is what it is, a consensus of what freedoms society is going to allow.

I am not sure you can claim that as a society 'progresses' it always leads to a guarantee of even more freedom. It assumes that society has a departure point and a destination, and that the consensus merely acts as a brake, to be used as wanted. The departure place is absolute tyranny, the destination, absolute freedom.

But this is going off at a tangent.

Your last sentence is very interesting. A right is a consensus of freedoms society will allow. This is very close to the contractual notion of rights, that as a member of society we are awarded certain rights, though in exchange for certain duties.

But this doesn't equate to rights being the freedom to act. An individual can have the freedom or ability to act, yet not have the right to act.

A successful burglar doesn't have the right to burgle, even though he can. He can be said to have broken the contract, and thus forfeits certain rights if caught.
 
Just like the generalizations I make regarding nihilists are just an honest analysis of their habitual application of intellect.

Even though you are arguing against a strawman argument that nihilists don't make, by misunderstanding what nihilism is?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Just like the generalizations I make regarding nihilists are just an honest analysis of their habitual application of intellect.

Even though you are arguing against a strawman argument that nihilists don't make, by misunderstanding what nihilism is?
Click to expand...

What straw man have I argued that nihilists don't make?
 
What straw man have I argued that nihilists don't make?

By claiming that nihilism states that meaning and value don't exist, and thus this justifies 'baby killing', when in truth, nihilism argues that meaning and value don't exist innately, but are a human creation found only whereever humans invest meaning or value.
 
AnyOldIron said:
But it was still Hitler's right to exterminate the Jews because rights are the freedom to act, and Hitler had that freedom. He only stopped having the right, under these conditions, when he no longer had the freedom to act, ie through the actions of the allies?

I am using Hitler as a reductio per absurdum argument.

Do you agree that under your definition, there is no difference between carrying out an act, and having the right to carry out that act. I have the right to do anything, provided I am free (able) to do so?
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly stated throughout that people have the "right" to do as they will, that society through ethics will limit your "right" to do such. Repeating it doesn't make it "absurd". It is reality. As Stalin had freedom to exercise and practice his, society chose to reign in that of Hitler's machine.


I am not sure you can claim that as a society 'progresses' it always leads to a guarantee of even more freedom. It assumes that society has a departure point and a destination, and that the consensus merely acts as a brake, to be used as wanted. The departure place is absolute tyranny, the destination, absolute freedom.
Click to expand...


I didn't say always, re-read. You are being deliberately obtuse in this one. Once again it is the reality, one needs only to read history to see that what I am saying fits the reality.

But this is going off at a tangent.

Your last sentence is very interesting. A right is a consensus of freedoms society will allow. This is very close to the contractual notion of rights, that as a member of society we are awarded certain rights, though in exchange for certain duties.
Click to expand...

Once again, you have the "right", if you will it and are willing to face consequences to simply ignore society and do as you will. However, reason dictates that you will not be allowed to continue in such a vein if your freedoms cross those of another whether it be society to exercise their will, or it be another individual who will.

But this doesn't equate to rights being the freedom to act. An individual can have the freedom or ability to act, yet not have the right to act.

A successful burglar doesn't have the right to burgle, even though he can. He can be said to have broken the contract, and thus forfeits certain rights if caught.
Click to expand...
No, he is within the contract, he knows that if caught he will have access to such willful action taken from him by society. Society recognizes this freedom, but says that if you practice it and are caught at it they will exercise their freedom to ensure the freedom of others, and their chosen ethical code.

We have hashed through this already, do you read posts or just tiny parts of them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top