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

[The best and greatest]

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.

The problem with god of course is that god cannot speak for itself so when declaring an entity that cannot speak for itself the sole final arbiter on human morality all you've really done is just kick the can down the road. Also there is an inherent weakness to declaring an eternal standard to human morality anyway since it precludes the need or desire for growth or change. Why grow or change if you presume to be perfect?

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

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.

If we can speak meaningfully of universal human rights, then morality is ultimately as much a "human construct" as causality or the fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

To say that a concept like a "universal principle" is merely a "human construct", but we should use it anyway merely because, in some vague and poorly-defined sense, it is a "useful and beneficial idea", is pure sophistry.

 

[Emperor Julian]

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.

Well Arabia and africa is a geographical features rather than cultures but those are all pretty bad examples anyway since they all ascribe to core values found through all society's, simular virtues, simular vices and simular rules. The differances emerge in how we're going to achieve those goods and their failure to achieve them. I can't really say if I'm naive but I consider "it's wrong to steal." a pretty universal belief-can you give me an example where "I will take this thing which is yours off you even though I have no right to it and you don't want me to too." is considered not '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.

It can be Abritrary but more genrally it's built on logic, emotion and neccisity on a day to day level, re-writting a moral code is incredably difficult and typically takes centuries for even superificial shifts. . To explore your example do you think that the hypothetical Islamic calaphate would permit theft? Murder or say applaud lying to your peers?

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.

Well to start with morality doesnt automatically equate to intelligence (despite Bob chipsmans delusions) but to refine your point if say the 'evil' or 'dumb' people where to outnumber the good/smart people would they openly say evil actions like rape, murder and theft are good? Has that ever happened? Or do they have to rationalize an evil act?

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.

I'd actually argue it becomes more meaningless since you've conceeded that it's impossible to discern whats good or evil anyway and punted the question upstairs. I've given a couple of good examples here or principles which are found across the board.
I also believe in god (well a more a prime mover really) so I propose the question-if God dictates what is it good, Is it good because God dictated it or does god stating it affirm it's goodness? Because the former indicates their is no real good and the later indicates morality exists seperate from god.
I disagree with your assement since it relies on morality as a ladder in I propose "we have always aspired to this standard of universal moral truths." As I have no idea if we're more or less succesful than people in the past, especially considering how cushy we have it.

I disagree we can certainly measure morality through fairly simple means of observation and conclusion. for example we can easily argue their's been a massive improvement in reduction of violent deaths.

To say that a concept like a "universal principle" is merely a "human construct", but we should use it anyway merely because, in some vague and poorly-defined sense, it is a "useful and beneficial idea", is pure sophistry.

How so?

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

On one hand, I'm glad I'm not the most autistic philosotard around. On the other hand, there are universal moral constants, like "The Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have done unto you", and the Sociopath's Corollary to it - "I'm gonna do first, and most, so I can avoid being done."

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

How so?

Explain why the notion of a "universal ethical principle" is "a beneficial and useful idea", despite merely being a "human construct", in a clear, non-relative, and objective rationale for its usefulness and benefits.

I say "non-relative" because, coming from your argument, what may be "useful and beneficial" to a representative democracy may not be "useful and beneficial" to a theocracy run by terrorists, who may have a completely different notion of "universal ethical principle" in turn.

If an idea and it's applications is relative, then it's benefits and usefulness should also be relative.

 

[Bioniclelover]

The problem with god of course is that god cannot speak for itself so when declaring an entity that cannot speak for itself the sole final arbiter on human morality all you've really done is just kick the can down the road. Also there is an inherent weakness to declaring an eternal standard to human morality anyway since it precludes the need or desire for growth or change. Why grow or change if you presume to be perfect?

You do not seem to have a very good grasp on the christian morality, where did you even get the idea that humanity is perfect, all humans sin and thus there is always a path to self-improvement. And if morality can "change" or "grow" then it isn't universal since it can be changed by having just a bunch of people decide differently than before.

Well Arabia and africa is a geographical features rather than cultures but those are all pretty bad examples anyway since they all ascribe to core values found through all society's, simular virtues, simular vices and simular rules. The differances emerge in how we're going to achieve those goods and their failure to achieve them. I can't really say if I'm naive but I consider "it's wrong to steal." a pretty universal belief-can you give me an example where "I will take this thing which is yours off you even though I have no right to it and you don't want me to too." is considered not 'evil'.?

Just look at fucking communism.

It can be Abritrary but more genrally it's built on logic, emotion and neccisity on a day to day level, re-writting a moral code is incredably difficult and typically takes centuries for even superificial shifts. . To explore your example do you think that the hypothetical Islamic calaphate would permit theft? Murder or say applaud lying to your peers?

So you mean it's based on chemicals in your brain telling you that chemicals in brain of someone else are more right.
And yes, Quran allows both theft and lying, if it helps spreading Islam. Allah himself is called the "best of deceivers" in Quran 3:54 and 8:30.

Well to start with morality doesnt automatically equate to intelligence (despite Bob chipsmans delusions) but to refine your point if say the 'evil' or 'dumb' people where to outnumber the good/smart people would they openly say evil actions like rape, murder and theft are good? Has that ever happened? Or do they have to rationalize an evil act?

I don't see what rationalization has to do with the argument, if I rationalize murder does it make it any less murder?In many islamic countries rape is acceptable under certain circumstances and laws are structured in such way that even if proven rapists are not always punished, look at the case of rape in Pakistan where the raped girl's brother raped rapist's sister as a punishment or case where raped woman was stoned to death because she couldn't find more witnesses(woman's word is that of a half of a man in Quran) and was acclaimed to be guilty of sex outside marriage.

 

[Tour of Italy]

The problem with god of course is that god cannot speak for itself so when declaring an entity that cannot speak for itself the sole final arbiter on human morality all you've really done is just kick the can down the road. Also there is an inherent weakness to declaring an eternal standard to human morality anyway since it precludes the need or desire for growth or change. Why grow or change if you presume to be perfect?

I’ll leave aside the theological arguments for God speaking for himself for a moment. I will also admit that I’m not a philosopher and my own conceptions on the subject don’t address every issue. Although I personally find it more compelling than the alternative.

My point is, absent a foundational objective standard, morality as a term becomes utterly meaningless without it being fully defined, and those definitions themselves vary wildly to the point where I find it difficult to accept claims of universal natural moral law without a God to apply it.

“Good” and “Evil” just become pithy shorthand for a combination of vague standards; a mix of values that have seismically shifted over time. Is “good” always happiness? Freedom? Survival? Truth? Beauty? The need for humanity’s enduring legacy? And that’s even setting aside the fact that each of those concepts have disputed and widely varied interpretations.

How much of our own interpretation of these qualities is defined by culture or biology? What is the general priority they should take when they’re in conflict? What timeline for each should be considered? For example is temporary unhappiness always “immoral” or is it moral when it serves lasting happiness? What happens when individual access to these components of “good” conflict? Who takes priority? Do intentions matter, or just outcomes?

Compound this discussion with the fact that it’s applied constantly to every decision of every sentient being on the planet and we approach a dizzying level of complexity. And with no consistent standard to judge the outcome, morality reverts to a made-up term to describe a configuration of matter.

I’m saying that standards defined by consensus are not morality, and they shouldn’t be treated and discussed as such. They are arbitrary. A snapshot in time of how an evolved animal’s brain chemistry reacts to the stimuli provided by its surroundings and its previous conditioning. If you deny a metaphysical component, you deny the concept all together. A man being tortured is no longer evil, just an act detrimental to his happiness and detrimental to a society full of apes that would rather not also experience that pain. The mass that makes up the victim’s body is indifferent to it, and will be forever no matter what the eternal destination of his remains may be.

I’m not opposed to this thinking, even if I don’t agree with it (the no actual morality thing, not the torturing thing). I just wish people would be more up front about it. I wish arbitrary proposed changes to policy and cultural values weren’t hailed as unequivocally moral without us really taking the time to define the term in secular language. It almost always ends up being presented dogmatically, even if it’s dressed up otherwise. I’m aware this is a folly done by both the religious and irreligious, and often such definition isn’t practical given the limits of human communication, but it’s so rarely discussed that those impracticalities almost never matter. We just rely on assumed shared cultural values to make our way, even when we’re inconsistent in their application and never take the time to attempt to quantify them. And often when they’re not even shared!

This moral shorthand is not entirely useless, in fact it’s often the reason we can coexist at all. But the reality is that for a society supposedly progressing ever onward along the path of universal natural morality, it’s obvious we lack the tools and will to explore exactly what that means.

“This is just.” “It’s the right thing to do”. Okay, how? Does it maximize happiness? How is happiness defined? The release of dopamine? A complex interaction of biological and physiological systems? The feeling itself, or the capacity to achieve it consistently? How is it measured? Is happiness all that matters? More questions, fewer answers, and no practical way to even measure these things effectively in a form that can’t be abused or used to manipulate.

In short, how can you claim a consensus model of morality where there’s no consensus?

Terms like “Justice” are “the right side of history” are pushed so fucking hard without stopping to examine what that even means. The idea of a constant metaphysical morality is invoked by people who would admit they don’t consciously believe in it, even though they act as they do. Part of the reason for the cultural gulf we’re experiencing is that we’re so stunted in our definitions of morality that we can’t even communicate with each other anymore. And disturbingly often are those definitions tied to specific forms of short-sighted popular policy.

If there’s one thing I’ll actually give credit to the modern left for it’s the willingness to explore moral implications of previously unchallenged social structures. It’s just so often done without similar scrutiny to the standards of morality on which they base their analysis.

In general though, more thinking about the morality of a connected world is a step forward. The step backwards comes from the embracing a both a moral framework that has the potential to justify atrocities and a structure of government that is remarkably efficient at perpetrating them.

I do believe we should work together to build a well-defined consensus on morality as a society, and attempt to preserve those values. I just also believe personally that it’s not a natural process and my own contributions are based on my best interpretations of what I consider to be eternal principles. And I think using that consensus itself to define morality is dumb. No matter where society ends up, it’s going to look back smugly and say “well gang, we made it!” even if by every metric of general human welfare the Brave New World is a hellish nightmare made up of clueless, unfulfilled drones.

I’m gonna try to wrap this up with a few more points that have been on my mind.

First, if you do believe in consensus as a basis for morality, you have to be willing to actively build that consensus, including being willing to change your own mind and compromise. That said, I’m sick of the attitude of people who think that behaving “morally” despite not believing God somehow makes them more moral. Because, like I just spent over a dozen paragraphs ranting about, an absence of objective morality means that what your doing is not moral at all, it’s organizing matter in response to stimuli, and being an asshole while you do it.

Second, a belief in God as a moral arbiter does not kick the can down the road. Acknowledging our flawed, limited capacity to act morally does not preclude us from the responsibility to act anyway, according to that limited capacity. That includes our own personal actions and our attempts to contribute to a more moral society. As a personal religious philosophy, I believe it is moral to act in an attempt to do right as opposed to passively standing by. I have not said that it’s impossible to discern good from evil. Again, I personally believe that there is in fact an ability to do so inherent to all humans, tied to the existence of the divine. I’m only stating that our ability to do so is imperfect, as our knowledge is imperfect and our ability to grasp how actions impact a complex and interconnected world is limited. That does not mean that is pointless to try. Most religions would consider that the whole purpose of existence.

Lastly, addressing your second point (finally), I hope I’ve demonstrated how a perfect standard of morality does not mean we have no need to progress towards it. The opposite is true: an objective standard of morality is so overwhelmingly complex and out of reach that the only possible outcome is for us to fall short. The fact that perfection exists does not mean we have no reason to improve in pursuit of it. Think of your most deeply held convictions about what you perceive as “moral”. For argument’s sake, let’s pretend you’re the one that’s 100% right about it. Now think about your actions and how often they don’t conform to those ideals. There is always a need to do better, and failing to do so is itself an immoral act.

Anyway I wasted way too much of my life writing that but there you go.

 

[The best and greatest]

You do not seem to have a very good grasp on the christian morality, where did you even get the idea that humanity is perfect, all humans sin and thus there is always a path to self-improvement.

I didnt say humanity is perfect or anything like that. More that the moral system you operate under is perfect and if you do presume that to be true there isn't any reason to change. If you can't grow or change then how do you ever adapt to changing circumstances?

And if morality can "change" or "grow" then it isn't universal since it can be changed by having just a bunch of people decide differently than before.

But its already like that and always had been. If it weren't then that guy Jesus would have never even gotten off the ground in the first place, he would have just faded into obscurity.

 

[Bioniclelover]

I didnt say humanity is perfect or anything like that. More that the moral system you operate under is perfect and if you do presume that to be true there isn't any reason to change. If you can't grow or change then how do you ever adapt to changing circumstances?

What the fuck, I already said that there is always a path to self-improvement, just because rules don't change it doesn't mean that you can't grow. What even changing circumstances have to do with anything? That it's ok to murder someone under certain circumstances? That in the future the circumstances will allow us murder?

But its already like that and always had been. If it weren't then that guy Jesus would have never even gotten off the ground in the first place, he would have just faded into obscurity.

What? You sound like you are conflicting how people are acting with how people should act, the universal principles were always the same, people just followed them more or less in different places and different times.

Either way I don't think I have anything much else to say on the subject besides what was already posted here.

 

[The best and greatest]

I’ll leave aside the theological arguments for God speaking for himself for a moment. I will also admit that I’m not a philosopher and my own conceptions on the subject don’t address every issue. Although I personally find it more compelling than the alternative.

My point is, absent a foundational objective standard, morality as a term becomes utterly meaningless without it being fully defined, and those definitions themselves vary wildly to the point where I find it difficult to accept claims of universal natural moral law without a God to apply it.

“Good” and “Evil” just become pithy shorthand for a combination of vague standards; a mix of values that have seismically shifted over time. Is “good” always happiness? Freedom? Survival? Truth? Beauty? The need for humanity’s enduring legacy? And that’s even setting aside the fact that each of those concepts have disputed and widely varied interpretations.

How much of our own interpretation of these qualities is defined by culture or biology? What is the general priority they should take when they’re in conflict? What timeline for each should be considered? For example is temporary unhappiness always “immoral” or is it moral when it serves lasting happiness? What happens when individual access to these components of “good” conflict? Who takes priority? Do intentions matter, or just outcomes?

Compound this discussion with the fact that it’s applied constantly to every decision of every sentient being on the planet and we approach a dizzying level of complexity. And with no consistent standard to judge the outcome, morality reverts to a made-up term to describe a configuration of matter.

I’m saying that standards defined by consensus are not morality, and they shouldn’t be treated and discussed as such. They are arbitrary. A snapshot in time of how an evolved animal’s brain chemistry reacts to the stimuli provided by its surroundings and its previous conditioning. If you deny a metaphysical component, you deny the concept all together. A man being tortured is no long evil, just an act detrimental to his happiness and detrimental to a society full of apes that would rather not also experience that pain. The mass that makes up the victim’s body is indifferent to it, and will be forever no matter what the eternal destination of his remains may be.

I’m not opposed to this thinking, even if I don’t agree with it (the no actual morality thing, not the torturing thing). I just wish people would be more up front about it. I wish arbitrary proposed changes to policy and cultural values weren’t hailed as unequivocally moral without us really taking the time to define the term in secular language. It almost always ends up being presented dogmatically, even if it’s dressed up otherwise. I’m aware this is a folly done by both the religious and irreligious, and often such definition isn’t practical given the limits of human communication, but it’s so rarely discussed that those impracticalities almost never matter. We just rely on assumed shared cultural values to make our way, even when we’re inconsistent in their application and never take the time to attempt to quantify them. And often when they’re not even shared!

This moral shorthand is not entirely useless, in fact it’s often the reason we can coexist at all. But the reality is that for a society supposedly progressing ever onward along the path of universal natural morality, it’s obvious we lack the tools and will to explore exactly what that means.

“This is just.” “It’s the right thing to do”. Okay, how? Does it maximize happiness? How is happiness defined? The release of dopamine? A complex interaction of biological and physiological systems? The feeling itself, or the capacity to achieve it consistently? How is it measured? Is happiness all that matters? More questions, fewer answers, and no practical way to even measure these things effectively in a form that can’t be abused or used to manipulate.

In short, how can you claim a consensus model of morality where there’s no consensus?

Terms like “Justice” are “the right side of history” are pushed so fucking hard without stopping to examine what that even means. The idea of a constant metaphysical morality is invoked by people who would admit they don’t consciously believe in it, even though they act as they do. Part of the reason for the cultural gulf we’re experiencing is that we’re so stunted in our definitions of morality that we can’t even communicate with each other anymore. And disturbingly often are those definitions are tied to specific forms of short-sighted popular policy.

If there’s one thing I’ll actually give credit to the modern left for it’s the willingness to explore moral implications of previously unchallenged social structures. It’s just so often done without similar scrutiny to the standards of morality on which they base their analysis.

In general though, more thinking about the morality of a connected world is a step forward. The step backwards comes from the embracing a both a moral framework that has the potential to justify atrocities and a structure of government that is remarkably efficient at perpetrating them.

I do believe we should work together to build a well-defined consensus on morality as a society, and attempt to preserve those values. I just also believe personally that it’s not a natural process and my own contributions are based on my best interpretations of what I consider to be eternal principles. And I think using that consensus itself to define morality is dumb. No matter where society ends up, it’s going to look back smugly and say “well gang, we made it!” even if by every metric of general human welfare the Brave New World is a hellish nightmare made up of clueless, unfulfilled drones.

I’m gonna try to wrap this up with a few more points that have been on my mind.

First, if you do believe in consensus as a basis for morality, you have to be willing to actively build that consensus, including being willing to change your own mind and compromise. That said, I’m sick of the attitude of people who think that behaving “morally” despite not believing God somehow makes them more moral. Because, like I just spent over a dozen paragraphs ranting about, an absence of objective morality means that what your doing is not moral at all, it’s organizing matter in response to stimuli, and being an asshole while you do it.

I don't really disagree with any of this.

Second, a belief in God as a moral arbiter does not kick the can down the road. Acknowledging our flawed, limited capacity to act morally does not preclude us from the responsibility to act anyway, according to that limited capacity. That includes our own personal actions and our attempts to contribute to a more moral society. As a personal religious philosophy, I believe it is moral to act in an attempt to do right as opposed to passively standing by. I have not said that it’s impossible to discern good from evil. Again, I personally believe that there is in fact an ability to do so inherent to all humans, tied to the existence of the divine. I’m only stating that our ability to do so is imperfect, as our knowledge is imperfect and our ability to grasp how actions impact a complex and interconnected world is limited. That does not mean that is pointless to try. Most religions would consider that the whole purpose of existence.

So how do you square this? How do you aim to do good knowing full well your actions could unforeseeably result in evil? One could say that's irresponsible.

Lastly, addressing your second point (finally), I hope I’ve demonstrated how a perfect standard of morality does not mean we have no need to progress towards it. The opposite is true: an objective standard of morality is so overwhelmingly complex and out of reach that the only possible outcome is for us to fall short. The fact that perfection exists does not mean we have no reason to improve in pursuit of it. Think of your most deeply held convictions about what you perceive as “moral”. For argument’s sake, let’s pretend you’re the one that’s 100% right about it. Now think about your actions and how often they don’t conform to those ideals. There is always a need to do better, and failing to do so is itself an immoral act.

Anyway I wasted way too much of my life writing that but there you go.

Time wasn't wasted your thoughts make for a good read! I will say though that I think I failed in making myself clear. Its not that I think people are/aren't perfect but rather you can't have an eternal standard of morality without presuming that standard to be perfect. If it ever changes then it isn't/wasn't ever eternal (Which is a problem when your moral authority comes from your ability to withstand the test of time)

Like you I find value in striving for perfection believe it or not. Though I would add that I have no real expectations that I will actually achieve it nor should I because there is no lasting standard. What we perceive as perfection today is sub-par tomorrow.

What the fuck, I already said that there is always a path to self-improvement, just because rules don't change it doesn't mean that you can't grow. What even changing circumstances have to do with anything? That it's ok to murder someone under certain circumstances? That in the future the circumstances will allow us murder?

What? You sound like you are conflicting how people are acting with how people should act, the universal principles were always the same, people just followed them more or less in different places and different times.

Either way I don't think I have anything much else to say on the subject besides what was already posted here.

The entire thrust of my position is that rules DO change. They change all the time! You can't claim an eternal standard when your standard itself has probably undergone some revisions within your own lifetime.

 

[Bioniclelover]

The entire thrust of my position is that rules DO change. They change all the time! You can't claim an eternal standard when your standard itself has probably undergone some revisions within your own lifetime.

Rules are not universal if they can change, they are social constructs. There is no fucking reason to follow subjective morality. If laws of physics can change they aren't really laws.
And my standard has nothing to do with universal principles, what the fuck - I am seriously thinking that you cannot grasp that personal views have nothing to do with universal principles, I haven't even said examples of such principles.
Rules that change are just an agreement between a group of people and it works only as long as it is beneficiable to them.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Explain why the notion of a "universal ethical principle" is "a beneficial and useful idea", despite merely being a "human construct", in a clear, non-relative, and objective rationale for its usefulness and benefits.

Wel I was asking how is it sophist not why I'm wrong I have idea's why I'm wrong since I'm not really convinced of my own arguement. But to answer your question, pretty much every society has we've built has worked on the assumption their's a universal code of morality to justify both justice and leadership. It's hard to gauge how effective this genrally is because we've never tried it the other way. Maybe it wouldnt be a total shit show but it seems unlikely.

So how am I a sophist because I argued even the idea of universal ethics is useful? Unless you're just using like Sargon does?

Just look at fucking communism.

Or you could explain what you're getting at? But I'm guessing you mean that communism has weird fucked up perspectives on economics and social theory. However as we've already been through the core idea's of good and evil are still the same

-it's wrong to steal
-it's wrong to murder
-being nice to people is good.
The Soviets, the weird theocracies, even the horrible feudal societies all believe this. Find me me a culture which doesnt think that way.

So you mean it's based on chemicals in your brain telling you that chemicals in brain of someone else are more right.

Yes, and a wonderful singing voice is just you vibrating air with your meat flaps , I have no idea why describing the bland mechanics of being human undermines it.

And yes, Quran allows both theft and lying, if it helps spreading Islam. Allah himself is called the "best of deceivers" in Quran 3:54 and 8:30.

Well there is no Quran 3:54 or 8:30, it like saying Bible 1:32. Again I think you mean Chapter (3) sūrat āl ʿim'rān (The Family of Imrān and Chapter ( sūrat l-anfāl (The Spoils of War). Both of which are genrally translated as Allah is the best of planners in the 3d chess sense. one of the translations calls him a better schemer but that's the overall translations seem to be trying to convey gods a better strategist than some heathen. For example quran 3:54 is about his plan to save jesus.
This if coarse is a complete tangent anyway.

I don't see what rationalization has to do with the argument, if I rationalize murder does it make it any less murder?In many islamic countries rape is acceptable under certain circumstances and laws are structured in such way that even if proven rapists are not always punished, look at the case of rape in Pakistan where the raped girl's brother raped rapist's sister as a punishment or case where raped woman was stoned to death because she couldn't find more witnesses(woman's word is that of a half of a man in Quran) and was acclaimed to be guilty of sex outside marriage.

Well this is a total tangent but expecting modern moral codes from ancient religious books is a waste of time, pretty much all the holy books are filled with weird psychotic rambling. This does not disprove my observation that pretty much all cultures have common root moral codes, even if there attempt to apply them is a total disaster area.

So out of curiousity did you read some half-baked diatribe about Islam? before this because we really went of tangent a lot here. But you seem to be mistaking humanities tendancy to be fucking awful with a lack of universal morality.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Wel I was asking how is it sophist not why I'm wrong I have idea's why I'm wrong since I'm not really convinced of my own arguement. But to answer your question, pretty much every society has we've built has worked on the assumption their's a universal code of morality to justify both justice and leadership. It's hard to gauge how effective this genrally is because we've never tried it the other way. Maybe it wouldnt be a total shit show but it seems unlikely.

So how am I a sophist because I argued even the idea of universal ethics is useful? Unless you're just using like Sargon does?

If every society somehow managed to work on universal ethical codes, despite morality being a mere human construct, then either societies work on falsehoods or arbitrarities, or there is something more to morality than just opinions and whims.

Universal ethical codes have no real meaning in relativist morality, and to rely upon what is meaningless because they are "useful" is disingenuous.

 

[Emperor Julian]

If every society somehow managed to work on universal ethical codes, despite morality being a mere human construct, then either societies work on falsehoods or arbitrarities, or there is something more to morality than just opinions and whims.

Universal ethical codes have no real meaning in relativist morality, and to rely upon what is meaningless because they are "useful" is disingenuous.

We rely on multiple concepts which have no inherant meaning or value to keep this clown car on the road, for example money or the social contract. Why would ethics be any differant?

 

[Non-Expert!]

They are declared through international organizations and conventions and written into treaties and other binding agreements. Then they are signed.

There simply are some universal human rights. Whether they are "natural" and not constructs of the modern world is irrelevant to the way they are supposed to be respected.

Nations that are not signatories, or rebel groups who violate the human rights of others, are considered pariahs. Many human rights violations, like genocide, are war crimes.

Even if there are double standards as to who is held to them, nevertheless, they are in place.

Human rights - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Y2K Baby]

Just look at USSR,

How
Where is it now

 

[Stoneheart]

there is no Moral Justification for Human rights. Its Pure Pragmatism and not even needed to make a society run. You can have a perfectly functional democracy without any right for subhumans and just basic rights for woman. that society would work alot better than what we have today.

 

[Non-Expert!]

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

Maybe it's the way the question is worded, but the answer is, the concept of universal human rights exists within a framework of mutual consensus between nations.

Whether universal human rights are useful, viable, sustainable or practical in an era of moral relativism, was not part of the original question. Neither was the issue of different cultures being bound to the same ethos, and whether God is the ultimate arbiter, or not. So you asked two questions here.

But with that. being said, many universal human rights are entirely based on a common-sense notion of justice. For example, no you can not bring masked thugs to somebody's door, kidnap the brother on a Thursday evening, take him out to an alley, and shoot him. Sure, you can. Try it some time, see where that gets you ...

No you can not beat children within an inch of their life if they forgot to their homework.

No, you can't walk into a village in Viet Nam or the Congo and fill its inhabitants with bullet holes, then toss the dying people into a barn and burn it.

What is the complexity here? Even if you ignore the human suffering it imposes, even a sociopath can see that these acts lead to an unstable and unsecure society.

It doesn't matter what the Bible or the Bhagava Gita, the Koran and by extension, Gurus, priests and Rabbis prattle on about. It also is largely intellectual frappery to discuss these things in terms of moral relativity because a common-sense, pragmatic view of all of this dictates that there is a massive cost, to human suffering, disease, destruction and death.

Therefore different nations agree on some basic human rights. Whether or not they uphold their commitments is a different question all together. This basic understanding of what constitutes the humane treatment of others, is a bar, at least, that nations and organizations can be held to.

 

[DDBCAE CBAADCBE]

You're going about this all the wrong way. See, if we just exterminate everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or whatever and then kill ourselves the problem will have solved itself. Easy peasy.

 

[???]

I see what you're doing here, but it won't work and it's pointless - even harmful - to try.

Contradictions are inherent to the liberal order because forcing someone to admit that a lie is true makes that person complicit in their own subjugation. Arguing with a liberal that the basis of their worldview is inherently contradictory assumes that their worldview has a rational, generative purpose. The liberal doesn't actually care that his beliefs make no sense because his beliefs are simply a tool which he can use to humiliate you, which is his real goal.

Liberalism is totalitarian in the sense that it can't allow non-liberals to exist. The purpose of the liberal worldview is to atomize groups of people from their identities - based on productive roles in a society whose purpose is to survive and thrive - and assign them new identities based on the only legitimate role is a liberal society, that of the consumer.

Your identity as a father and husband is difficult, harsh, unforgiving, and painful; but if you embrace liberalism you can choose your own identity based on what you consume. Your options are troon, porn addict, drug addict, gamer, cuck-dad, wignat, or federal asset. None of these are productive, and that's the point: liberalism is a weapon used to destroy first a society and then it's people.

Every society which embraced liberalism is dying, while those that reject it are at least surviving. The only exceptions are those run by bandits larping as Marxists as in Venezuela... but even then, no one is chopping the dicks off little boys or letting hordes of Pakistani's gang rape their preteen daughters, so it's debatable if they really are inferior to liberal Britain.

Back on topic, when designing and evaluating a moral or ethical philosophy, you should concern yourself with responsibilities.

Rights assume that the building block of society is the individual, which is obviously false. A single man in the wilderness may build a hovel if given enough time and natural talent, but this assumes experience gained prior to his isolation that can only be found in relationships with other people. Besides that, a group of people find trivial the trials of the individual.

Building a belief system around responsibilities sidesteps the issue of universal vs particular morality because it assumes that those with whom you share deeper and stronger ties are owed and owe you more particularities. When you love thy neighbor, it's assumed you see him IRL once in a while.

Furthermore, with a belief system built on relationships as the basis of legitimate authority you can freely dismiss the legitimacy of your social betters if they fail to keep up their side of the bargain. The implications of this are obvious considering the political realignment we are currently living through.

A moral and ethical system built on responsibilities necessarily must adopt a decentralized, distributed, and highly local form of government to be seen as legitimate. This matters because it is much riskier to oppress a man who lives close enough to shoot you one fine morning on your way to the mailbox than it is to oppress a man who can never find your address.

Building a moral or ethical system on rights is unwise also because clever subversives can undermine your society by expanding the list of things which are rights, and altering the reasoning for why you are owed them. A right to privacy becomes a right to autonomy becomes a right to murder the unborn. A right to freedom of expression becomes a right to distribute pornography. I don't know what the legal basis is for the civil rights act, but it's being culturally if not quite legally being expanded from sex as gender to sex as sexual expression and orientation.

edit

This effort poast by a certain Persian-Scottsman offers critiques of liberalism using Foucault's concept of biopower.

Right Wing Foucault

“By this I mean a number of phenomena that seem to me to be quite significant, namely, the set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of a …

theamericansun.com