How can the concept of universal human rights exist within a framework of moral-ethical relativism and/or moral isolationism?

[Iwasamwillbe]

If "moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others" and/or "we can never understand any culture except our own, so we cannot make moral judgments about other cultures", then how can anyone meaningfully speak of human rights as a universal concept?

The notion of universal human rights necessarily assumes the existence of a universal code of ethics, of certain universal moral and/or ethical truths or standards that must be followed at all times. Therefore, those guilty of violating them would be considered morally and/or ethically wrong.

So, how does this square up with the moral relativism and isolationism that many (including many so-called "academics" and "intellectuals") subscribe to in the first world?

 

[Foxxo]

Uh... No shit. That's why the God-Emperor of Mankind started with the rest of Earth, and the amoral cults on Mars & the Moon.

 

[JustFuckinaDude]

I’d like to think “treat people the way you’d like to be treated” is pretty universally accepted as reasonable.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that people live in “moral isolationism” when most people don’t live in a vacuum. Maybe a bit optimistic of me, but outside of the fringe groups, I’d like to believe most people don’t surround themselves with sycophants.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

I’m not sure where you got the idea that people live in “moral isolationism” when most people don’t live in a vacuum. Maybe a bit optimistic of me, but outside of the fringe groups, I’d like to believe most people don’t surround themselves with sycophants.

When I speak of "moral isolationism", I speak of of the kind people who unironically go "it's just their culture" when a Muslim goes on a terrorism spree. I'm talking about people who say that people in the West have absolutely no right to morally criticize other cultures.

 

[Y2K Baby]

it's just their culture" when a Muslim goes on a terrorism spree

Of course this is what this is about.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Let's start with the fact that moral relativism is itself a contradiction. Its premise is "An absolute moral truth is that there are no absolute moral truths." Moral relativism (i.e., "That's just YOUR truth") is what's flung around when the debater has no logical response to a given argument, and just want the other side to shut up and go away.
The people who claim to hold views of moral relativism/isolationism in actuality have a certain set of moral absolute truths that they can only defend through moral relativism/isolation (such as "All white people are evil, and you're white so you can't say otherwise you evil person.") Their idea of "basic human rights" encompasses luxuries (such as cell phones) that humans have survived without for centuries alongside necessities (such as housing and food), all paid for by the government and the redistributing of wealth.

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

Yes there is a conflict between these two ideas but unprincipled and ignorant modern progressives are really too stupid to see it.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Of course this is what this is about.

That's just the first thing that came to my mind as I was typing this out. Don't be more autistic than usual now.

 

[Y2K Baby]

Yes there is a conflict between these two ideas but unprincipled and ignorant modern progressives are really too stupid to see it.

Epic indeed!

Don't be more autistic than usual now.

Butthurt /pol/ kiddy libtard

 

[inexplicable ethos]

Let's start with the fact that moral relativism is itself a contradiction. Its premise is "An absolute moral truth is that there are no absolute moral truths." Moral relativism (i.e., "That's just YOUR truth") is what's flung around when the debater has no logical response to a given argument, and just want the other side to shut up and go away.
The people who claim to hold views of moral relativism/isolationism in actuality have a certain set of moral absolute truths that they can only defend through moral relativism/isolation (such as "All white people are evil, and you're white so you can't say otherwise you evil person.") Their idea of "basic human rights" encompasses luxuries (such as cell phones) that humans have survived without for centuries alongside necessities (such as housing and food), all paid for by the government and the redistributing of wealth.

Moral relativism doesn't preclude someone from holding their own moral beliefs, nor does it require someone to believe that other people's moral beliefs aren't inferior. Belief in moral relativism only really requires that someone acknowledge that there is no fundamental objective morality; you can still think your own personal moral system is superior to others. I can say that everyone has their own moral beliefs and that no one person is more objectively correct than any other (they're all equally incorrect and non-objective), and at the same time still think the world would be a better place if everyone conformed to my own moral beliefs.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

I’d like to think “treat people the way you’d like to be treated” is pretty universally accepted as reasonable.

I think you're forgetting about ABDL aficionados and similar degenerate scum. Some people enjoy being degraded; that's where that line of reasoning breaks down.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I don't really see why not, you may be aware that morality is just a human construct but so is civilisation. Just because sky dad doesnt demand a universal principle doesnt mean it isnt a useful benificial idea.

 

[Bioniclelover]

I don't really see why not, you may be aware that morality is just a human construct but so is civilisation. Just because sky dad doesnt demand a universal principle doesnt mean it isnt a useful benificial idea.

The question is not whether something is useful but whether there is any actual reason why one would follow said principles.

 

[Emperor Julian]

The question is not whether something is useful but whether there is any actual reason why one would follow said principles.

Well on a practical level ensuring universal rights has a lot of practical advantages for you specifically even before you consider if you're emotionally invested in the wellfare of other people. Although personally I feel emotional links with humanity as a whole is rationale enough.

 

[Bioniclelover]

Well on a practical level ensuring universal rights has a lot of practical advantages for you specifically even before you consider if you're emotionally invested in the wellfare of other people. Although personally I feel emotional links with humanity as a whole is rationale enough.

On practical level one cannot expect that majority of people will agree with you if the principles are subjective. People always foremost act in their own interest.

 

[Tour of Italy]

I don't really see why not, you may be aware that morality is just a human construct but so is civilisation. Just because sky dad doesnt demand a universal principle doesnt mean it isnt a useful benificial idea.

The question is not whether something is useful but whether there is any actual reason why one would follow said principles.

“Universally beneficial” is a loaded term whose definition varies across cultures and time. It’s already packed with moral assumptions to the point where it’s in and of itself a conclusion based on moral relativism.

If there’s an objective, universal morality then it is beyond human capacity to measure and apply it to our vastly complex societies. Hence the need for God.

If there is no such moral standard independent of human thought, then appealing to morality is just an attempt to manipulate people using their feelings and the values they’ve been socialized to have. Similarly, morality would be used to soothe our own emotional dissonance by justifying our actions with an arbitrary moral framework.

The world exists in one state or the other in this binary and anyone who says otherwise is selling you something.

You’re either Team God or Team Pointless Bullshit Until the Sun Goes Out.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

You can probably twist it around that some concepts are relative (animal rights) and others are constant (human rights). This is of course if you are speaking with a person that tries to have consistent opinions about morality rather than flip flopping based on politics.

 

[Emperor Julian]

On practical level one cannot expect that majority of people will agree with you if the principles are subjective. People always foremost act in their own interest.

I've never really expected people to agree with me but most people tend to defer to what they perceive as good and overall consencus on some idea's are plausable. For example pretty much every society accepts that it's genrally wrong to kill other people without a really good reason.

“Universally beneficial” is a loaded term whose definition varies across cultures and time. It’s already packed with moral assumptions to the point where it’s in and of itself a conclusion based on moral relativism.

If there’s an objective, universal morality then it is beyond human capacity to measure and apply it to our vastly complex societies. Hence the need for God.

If there is no such moral standard independent of human thought, then appealing to morality is just an attempt to manipulate people using their feelings and the values they’ve been socialized to have. Similarly, morality would be used to soothe our own emotional dissonance by justifying our actions with an arbitrary moral framework.

The world exists in one state or the other in this binary and anyone who says otherwise is selling you something.

You’re either Team God or Team Pointless Bullshit Until the Sun Goes Out.

That just defines God as a noble lie or shunts responsability for morality upstairs to an Cryptic entity which is at best alien to us, which also makes human morality meaningless.
There are universal trends in moralty which imply either a universal underlying principles or more likely that our societies rely on a rational consensus we can all genrally agree on. For example pretty much every succesful society says it's wrong to steal from your fellow citizens. While it isnt perfect it is plausable to build a general concensus on what it good or what is evil.

 

[Bioniclelover]

I've never really expected people to agree with me but most people tend to defer to what they perceive as good and overall consencus on some idea's are plausable. For example pretty much every society accepts that it's genrally wrong to kill other people without a really good reason.

Just look at China, USSR, India, Arabia, Africa or any non-western country and you'll see that you cannot expect people to view things the same way as you. No offense, but you sound really naive. To be honest I don't really care what one person believes but you cannot make a good argument that majority of people will came to same consensus as you in regards to principles without anything that would justify that they are innate. Just look at chinese people driving over people to avoid paying people they accidently struck with their car for their rest of their lives, cooking bats, dogs, rats, bird fetuses and eating them, living like drones since immemorial.

That just defines God as a noble lie or shunts responsability for morality upstairs to an Cryptic entity which is at best alien to us, which also makes human morality meaningless.
There are universal trends in moralty which imply either a universal underlying principles or more likely that our societies rely on a rational consensus we can all genrally agree on. For example pretty much every succesful society says it's wrong to steal from your fellow citizens. While it isnt perfect it is plausable to build a general concensus on what it good or what is evil.

No, rational consensus is meaningless and it's completely arbitrary. People with time can vote differently and thus completely rewrite the moral code and same if another culture would take reins of power. Do you think that if for example muslims seized power and western people died out, that with time they would just came to same conclusion as you? All is even needed is one person in power to change everything and as long as they would be able to enforce their will, things will be exactly as they want, just look at aforementioned China, which in no way is even getting closer to our western values. All it is is just word of one person versus word of another person and since both are subjective they hold the same value. And as soon as the number of dumber people overwhelm smarter people, values smarter people invented will become null.

 

[Tour of Italy]

That just defines God as a noble lie or shunts responsability for morality upstairs to an entity which is at best alien to us, which also makes human morality meaningless.
There are universal trends in moralty which imply either a universal underlying principles or more likely that our societies rely on a rational consensus we can all genrally agree on. For example pretty much every succesful society says it's wrong to steal from your fellow citizens. While it isnt perfect it is plausable to build a general concensus on what it good or what is evil.

My point is without God or objective ethical standards, there is no responsibility for morality and our flawed human version of it is even more meaningless.
Societies rely on consensus, but there’s no evidence that it’s universal or even rational, much less “moral” as traditionally defined. It just becomes an arbitrary state of being, and a complex and in-flux state of being at that.

I believe in God, so I’m absolutely biased, but I try to come at it from the perspective of a moral binary. After all, I don’t know God exists with evidence to the level of any other empirical standard, so it’s helpful to me to explore both options. The reality is without objective standards of morality, all morality is subject to the whims of the human condition, at whatever state of social and technological development they find themselves in.

You can’t rely on the assumption that our current state of morality is the product of years of forward progress toward this point. The idea is tautological and self-fulfilling. “We reached this standard of universal moral truths because the universal moral truths helped us reach this standard”. It relies on the assumption that we’re at a superior state without explaining why it’s superior to any satisfactory level other than individual gratification.

Am I happier than my ancestors because of our current system? In many ways yes, but in many others, no. Am I more moral? That’s almost impossible to untangle given the complexities of our interconnected globalized society.

Without an eternal standard to measure against, there’s nothing about modern morality that is truly quantitative, and all we get is a qualitative description rather than a judgement. A judgement that in a mere consensus model is itself an arbitrary amalgamation of relative morality.