Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

I was asking if it is something that intrinsically exists, then what makes it so? Alright, but that is one aspect of the game, and I'm unclear about how it relates to the topic.

quote:

---

They just have no good reason to be moral.

---

To the contrary. It proves that objective morals do exist, despite the desire for it not being so. What does reproductive maturity entail, and how would keeping competition around benefit you? In a true altruistic sense, it makes no sense.Example: Suppose you were out in the woods for a walk when a brush fire started. Suddenly you become disoriented because of the amount of smoke, but you press on in the direction where you think a small river is located. On your way you see an old woman who is lying on the floor yelling for help.In your mind, this person has a broken leg. You don't know who she is. You know that if you leave her, the fire will consume her. But if you save her, you are going to have to carry her. She's dead weight. She impedes your chances for survival.The pragmatic answer is simple enough. Leave her. But you can't escape that nagging sense of guilt. How could you allow an old lady to die out there alone? Racked by guilt and haunted by the prospect of a conscience that will eat you alive for the rest of your life, you tun back and save her.Not a soul would have known what happened out there. There was no benefit to saving her life. In fact, you jeopardized your own life to ensure hers. Why did you save her? You aren't listening to me. I challenge that all people really do believe in objective moral values-- even atheists. Because no one can live any kind of meaningful life without them. The problem exists when the atheist has to find out what it is that instituted that absolute morality.An unbeliever can't answer that question with any honesty and still remain within the framework of its own godlessness.Therefore, they often nimbly avoid the question head-on and use some unknown darwinian reason as their basis. If my conscience was not wired as such, meaning God never put His Law in my heart, then there would be no reason. We would be like the brute beasts of the field-- creatures of instinct alone. Because that was imparted to me and you, we feel compelled towards action. It doesn't explain why it exists, why you would even feel the urge, or by what mechanism it comes by. Its an ad hoc answer to a belabored question. Why? Why? Why don't I have any rights to it? What cosmic reason, other than God, would prevent me from ravaging you at my whim? Who says otherwise? Arbitrary and socially constructed are basically antonyms. If it was socially constructed, it wouldn't be arbitrary. And if it is intrinsic, (meaning society didn't dictate your feelings on the matter), then why it is intrinsic is every bit as important as any other question regarding morality.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

In case you missed it, I created post #225 to reset the thread back on topic. I think where you are going is part of the discussion I had intended, though a bit on the edge. Check to see how I view it fitting in. Not to speak for rrhain, but I don't think they are necessarily antonyms. I think by arbitrary he meant that it could have been anything, that there was no one particular set of rules they had to end up with. In any case, if he didn't mean that, I would have.I find ethical theories, morality, cultures, and laws arbitrary in that they could be just about anything. And indeed that is what we have found throughout history. Even the golden rule hasn't existed in every society, though indeed it is common to many. I love to see the varied way humans can decide to live.That said, the "rules" are all socially constructed, so the people in those communities had intent and purpose while making them. Edited by Silent H, : making

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

brennakimi responds to me in multiple posts (trying to reduce clutter):

quote:

---

quote:

---

You mean if I don't get a job the State will imprison me? Fine me? Give me a stern talking to? Since when was it declared the case that a person has to get a job? I dare say that quite a lot of the wealthiest people in the world don't actually have jobs. Where are the consequences the State is imposing upon them for taking themselves out of the workforce?

---

​

no, dope.

---

Then why did you say that the State has an interest in what I do with my body with regard to contributing to the economy, fool?Now that we have the ad hominem out of the way, perhaps you can get back to answering the question.

quote:

---

it is in the state's interests to ensure that people are capable of contributing to the economy.

---

Why? We specifically did away with slavery in this country. Therefore, the State has no such interest.

quote:

---

i used "quotation marks" for a reason, dope.

---

I know, fool.You seem to love them ad hominems, don't you? Now that we have them out of the way, perhaps you can get back to answering the question.

quote:

---

is one of the few times the constitution protects you from other people and not the state.

---

Which shows you didn't actually read it. Let's try again, shall we: Where does it discuss who is carrying out the slavery? In fact, I see a very specific reference to State action. After all, who is the one who carries out the "punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"? That's right...the State.And just what do you think "within the United States" means? If the Feds can engage in slavery, how does that jibe with the claim that it shall not exist?

quote:

---

why do you think we have public schools with mandatory attendance?

---

Lots of reasons. The big one is political, not economic. An educated populace is better able to participate in the functioning of the government. Since our government eventually owes its existence to the populace, it is in the State's interest to educate the populace.

quote:

---

quote:

---

By this logic, sterilization should be outlawed. And yet, it is the most common form of birth control.

---

​

it does qualify as "mutilation," doesn't it?

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

peoples reproductive habits and organs are generally in their own purview, not the government's.

---

Indeed.But the justification isn't a question of economic ability. Do you understand why the phrase "a danger to oneself or others" includes the reference to the self?

quote:

---

well, if it's still legal, you haven't been working hard enough.

---

Indeed. The problem is people like you who can't get past the sexism.

quote:

---

it indicates that i never fucking thought about it.

---

And yet, you decided to declaim instead of pausing to consider. And if you didn't pause to consider about this, what else haven't you paused to consider about?

quote:

---

i don't tend to dick around with bacteria, i try to keep them away from me.

---

That would be very bad as your life depends upon bacteria. They live in your gut and are a huge part of your immune system. Part of the way you keep harmful, food-borne pathogens out is because you have a thriving colony of bacteria currently living in your gut. If that colony is well-established, it is very difficult for new bacteria to establish a foothold. That doesn't make it impossible, of course, just difficult. If your doctor should prescribe antibiotics, it's a good idea to start eating yogurt with active cultures. The antibiotics will do a number on your intestinal flora and you will want to replace them (obviously, don't take the yogurt at the same time as the antibiotics as that will defeat the purpose.)

quote:

---

in the mean time, i didn't spout off.

---

Did you or did you not say: Are you going to deny your own words?

quote:

---

and yet you can't see why i'm trying to discuss building laws that follow this simple principle of allowing people to do to their bodies what they want.

---

Oh, I see it perfectly. The difference is that I haven't fallen for the false dichotomy you have. No right is absolute. In general, I have a right to do with my body what I want. But also, I have a right to be free from assault. Sometimes, the person assaulting my body is myself.I agree that we need to be very careful when making that assessment, but it can be the case that I am a danger to myself.

quote:

---

you know why we don't let people chop their arms off? because that requires that we accommodate them in their new disability.

---

So? We let people overeat and smoke and do all sorts of things that result in disability. You can't think of a reason why there's a difference?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbiogirl writes:

quote:

---

In that case, Rrhain used a bad example!

---

Why?Be specific.Why do we not let people chop their arms off? We consider BIID to be a mental illness and we stop people from having their limbs amputated.Why special pleading for the genitals? Brennakimi seems to think it has to do with economics. If we let people cut their limbs off, they won't be good worker bees for the State. Since not having genitals doesn't make you unable to push a button, there's no reason for the State to interfere.I think it has to do with the State's interest in keeping the population safe from assault...even if the person doing it is yourself.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:

quote:

---

I was asking if it is something that intrinsically exists, then what makes it so?

---

The society that creates them. Just as all societal constructions do. They exist because we exist.

quote:

---

Alright, but that is one aspect of the game, and I'm unclear about how it relates to the topic.

---

Because the rules are the equivalent of morality: They are socially constructed mandates about behaviour. They aren't handed down from some supernatural authority but instead are created by humans.

quote:

---

To the contrary. It proves that objective morals do exist, despite the desire for it not being so.

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves that not to be so.Or are you saying atheists don't have morals?Or are you saying there are no "real" atheists?Or are you saying that atheists are using the morality of god but are just willfully denying where it comes from?If you ask an atheist, you'll handily get a foundational basis for morality and it won't contain any reference to god. Therefore, since morality can and does come from outside divine authority, your claim that it is a "desire" for it not being so is proven false by inspection.

quote:

---

What does reproductive maturity entail

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously claiming that you don't know what the word "reproductive" means?

quote:

---

and how would keeping competition around benefit you?

---

Because if we help each other, then we're not competing. That would seem to be obvious.

quote:

---

In a true altruistic sense, it makes no sense.

---

Huh? If I help you and you help me and we both reach reproductive maturity, how is that not a benefit to both of us?

quote:

---

Why did you save her?

---

You really can't think of a single reason why other than god wants you to?Yes, I know I'm being evasive. I really do have a reason why, but I am hoping that you can figure it out for yourself. This is something that you will be able to comprehend much more easily if you do the work required to come to the conclusion on your own rather than having somebody tell it to you.

quote:

---

I challenge that all people really do believe in objective moral values-- even atheists.

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves that not to be so.Or are you saying atheists don't have morals?Or are you saying there are no "real" atheists?Or are you saying that atheists are using the morality of god but are just willfully denying where it comes from?If you ask an atheist, you'll handily get a foundational basis for morality and it won't contain any reference to god. Therefore, since morality can and does come from outside divine authority, your claim that it is a "desire" for it not being so is proven false by inspection.

quote:

---

The problem exists when the atheist has to find out what it is that instituted that absolute morality.

---

When was it decided that morality was "absolute"? Morality is arbitrary and socially constructed.

quote:

---

An unbeliever can't answer that question with any honesty and still remain within the framework of its own godlessness.

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves that not to be so.

quote:

---

If my conscience was not wired as such, meaning God never put His Law in my heart, then there would be no reason. We would be like the brute beasts of the field-- creatures of instinct alone. Because that was imparted to me and you, we feel compelled towards action.

---

And yet, the mere existence of people who have no use for your god (and two-thirds of the world has no use for your god) proves that statement not to be so.The fact that you don't understand how they manage to do it doesn't mean they don't do it, NJ. It just means that they're capable of doing something you can't: Live life without your god.

quote:

---

It doesn't explain why it exists, why you would even feel the urge, or by what mechanism it comes by.

---

Why not? Why does functionality not explain why social constructs work toward that which is most functional? If a social construct doesn't work, doesn't help to achieve your goals, why on earth would anybody continue to follow it? Why wouldn't they work to develop a more functional construct?

quote:

---

Arbitrary and socially constructed are basically antonyms.

---

Incorrect. Arbitrary means there is no divine authority dictating what the choice should be. Socially constructed means that the choice did not come from on high but rather from the people who need to use it. In many cases, there are many functional responses to a given problem. Society will arbitrarily decide which one is the one they wish to follow.

quote:

---

And if it is intrinsic, (meaning society didn't dictate your feelings on the matter),

---

Huh? Societal constructs are intrinsic to the society. It is what defines a society. And the members of the society are the ones who determine what those constructs are.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

do you really think the state has no interest in and exercises no interest in economic success? you know what. i call bullshit. i shouldn't have even stepped into this shit. having and exercising economic interest doesn't require slavery. so why is it that we're emphasising math and reading and not government theory classes? how did you graduate from high school if you don't know that the government has a vested interest in economic and monetary success? [qs]

quote:

---

peoples reproductive habits and organs are generally in their own purview, not the government's.

---

Indeed.But the justification isn't a question of economic ability. Do you understand why the phrase "a danger to oneself or others" includes the reference to the self?what does that have to do with reproducive organs? and who defines danger? you? the problem is not me. if you put a reasonable law on the ballot, i'll vote for it. but i have other things to campaign for. we can't all do everything. that i shouldn't have started talking to you. blah blah blah blah. i think you knew what i mean. i happen to have a nasty colon of staph in my head as we speak. i'm sure you're not so daft as to think i was talking about the various things in my stomach instead. except that someone else called you on your bullshit, too. so. show me where it's illegal to cut of your own arms. oh sure, you can be baker acted, but do show me the laws against self-mutilation. clearly there isn't since you happen to be mistaken in this "it's illegal to mutilate yourself" crap. i gave you the benefit of the doubt. clearly i was sorely wrong.but look. you have no understanding whatsoever of law or government and i'm really quite done with you. your threads have been nothing but "you don't care about my dick enough" and i've had it. get over yourself.

J Appl Philos. 2005;22(1):75-86.
Amputees by choice: body integrity identity disorder and the ethics of amputation.It's rare, but surgeons have agreed to amputate limbs for BIID folks.

when people here get stumped at anything better to say, they accuse you of some manner of bigotry and then make the discussion all about their claim. it's cute, really.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Brenna, my comment was a single instance three word toss off on her amos and andy routine insult (didn't you read the post?). Ironically your comment here would be more suited to her claim... and her reply.Nothing I said after that comment had anything to do with racism. In fact, I reset debate on the actual thread topic in post 225.Its now 100% FGM free!

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

that's nice. you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles of culture and politics and you argue political theory incompletely, inconsistently, and inaccurately, and you won't listen to, well, experts. i suggest you do some reading on the realities of international and transnational organizations before you decide to resurrect this topic. you can get books off amazon for less than $6 or you can go to your local university library. i assure you, any book i recommend to you will be found there. if you want a list of my comprehensive exam reading list, i can give it to you. then, you can start to have an idea of what you're talking about.

Ironically I have minored in sociology (which is not divorced from the same understandings of Anthro, especially regarding culture), and have worked at the international dept of a US gov't agency. So to have you claim I have it all wrong and am not listening to experts falls a bit flat. It sounds like convenient assertion.Why don't you describe what the role of culture and politics are? For example was the National Socialist party not attempting to create and maintain a dominant Aryan culture within Germany? If not, what would you describe their political activity was, as applied to the various cultures within Germany?The same could be asked regarding Maoism in China, or the current Dutch gov't advocating a single dutch culture (this is their claim). Indeed the Dutch PM, while acting as the European president tried to expand this by holding talks to determine what the European culture is. Perhaps they have it wrong, but that does not change what they are attempting to do.If you are an expert, it seems to me it would be easier to discuss the issue, than hand wave it away with rank personal insults. I mean in the science threads much more complex issues are broken down for laymen who clearly have several subjects totally whacked.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You mean, like how you so conveniently materialize some kind of unique expertise in every topic you participate in?You must be 180 years old to have actually had all the degrees and careers you've claimed in threads past. That, or you're simply a liar. Judging by the degree that you regularly misrepresent others simply as a matter of course, I suspect you can guess which I find more likely.

This is why you aren't getting answers from me. You need to show an ability to withhold personal attacks.I generally don't participate in debates on subjects I have no experience (I never claimed expertise here... she did). I do have a broad range of educational and work experience. Contrary to your claim that I do this on every subject, I have specifically laid out what they are in the past, and they have not changed. Also, I only have one degree (though I have full course credit for a second undergrad in Chem).One good example of a non-expertise, is biology. Since you began posting you went from a level I'd have considered below my own, to what appears to be something well, well beyond. I assume its connected with your major which I've already congratulated you on. Likewise I would never try to dispute... instead I would listen... to cavediver expand a point on physics.In this thread I have never tried to shut down discussion based on my background at all, or appealed to it as a reason for anyone to agree with me. In all cases, I have been responding to others who have tried to shut down discussion based on their supposed expertise. I'm saying their claims that they are the all knowing arbiters, and so what they say is true, is a bit suspect, even if they do have the education (which I don't dispute).If a person is an expert, they may still be wrong about something. And if they are right, their expertise ought to produce a more productive answer than personal insults.Edited by Silent H, : and to

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

To the extent that your relentless dishonesty becomes an obstacle to every discussion with you, it has to be discussed. Discussion simply can't occur when one party is determined to be relentlessly contrarian and disingenuous.Thus, the behavior has to be brought to your attention, because until you change it, there's not much else to talk about. If you want to grapple with my questions - which I did raise, civilly, in posts 4 and 16, which you ignored - you have the same opportunity now that you did in the past. Nothing's stopping you aside from your own bad behavior.Civil discussion may occur just as soon as you're prepared to be civil, Holmes. But like always it appears you'd rather be dishonest. What explanation can you provide for your behavior?

I'm not sure if you'll see this reply or the one in the Obama thread first. I ended discussion between us on all serious topics until you can agree to be civil and roundly stop your personal attacks... both in the asking of a question, and in answering.I ended this after your behavior in another thread, and that was before I saw your first post in this thread. I didn't have a problem with your first one here and a couple others (which may be the ones you just cited). It doesn't matter. We are at an end on debating serious topics until you can stop the attacks altogether.You should now understand exactly what is happening. I will not discuss this again. If you feel I'm dishonest then I don't see why you'd want to start talking to me at all. Why not institute the same policy toward me?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard