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

[Stoneheart]

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.

That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?
Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites?

 

[Non-Expert!]

That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?
Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites?

What does this have to do with whites?

In order to keep brown, yellow and black people in a subjugated state, we would need to gain their permission to do so. The colonial era is behind us.

 

[Stoneheart]

In order to keep brown, yellow and black people in a subjugated state, we would need to gain their permission to do so. The colonial era is behind us.

but or moral code is still from that era and it didnt include nonwhites or woman.
Also the coloial era was the time most of Asia and Africa developed the most. they regressed from the level they were given by the white man, Indians cant use toilets anymore and Africans have very little useable infrastructure that wasnt build by colonial powers.

 

[Non-Expert!]

but or moral code is still from that era and it didnt include nonwhites or woman.
Also the coloial era was the time most of Asia and Africa developed the most. they regressed from the level they were given by the white man, Indians cant use toilets anymore and Africans have very little useable infrastructure that wasnt build by colonial powers.

Well then we don't have to worry about subjugating them, they do it to themselves.

 

[Lemmingwise]

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.

Very apt post.

The point of the fact that even when morality is defined simply, upholding it isn't necessarily so. In fact almost certainly isn't.

I experienced this in various sports. Take for example shooting. What you need to do to shoot accurately is very simple. Learn to pull the trigger without moving the pistol. Learn to adjust the sights accurately. Aim. Shoot. It's simple. But it isn't easy. It takes years to get things right.

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

Very apt post.

The point of the fact that even when morality is defined simply, upholding it isn't necessarily so. In fact almost certainly isn't.

Shouldn't we aim for perfection? Just because you can't reach it doesn't mean you can't get close.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Shouldn't we aim for perfection? Just because you can't reach it doesn't mean you can't get close.

What else are you going to do with your time here if it isn't to learn?

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

What else are you going to do with your time here if it isn't to learn?

Do you want to end up like China?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Do you want to end up like China?

I would not call China close to perfection.

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

I would not call China close to perfection.

I obviously didn't say that. That was a rhetorical question. China is a society without morals.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I obviously didn't say that. That was a rhetorical question. China is a society without morals.

1. I don't fully agree that it is. (Partially, yes)
2. My question of what else to do wirth your time was a rhetorical question that mostly agreed with your question (though I wouldn't call it aiming for perfection, but aiming for improvement. I am perhaps either more modest or more cynical)
3. I do believe that it is more sensible to have non-relativistic morals, that there are intangible morals and that it is worth persuing virtues and good morals.

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

1. I don't fully agree that it is. (Partially, yes)
2. My question of what else to do wirth your time was a rhetorical question that mostly agreed with your question (though I wouldn't call it aiming for perfection, but aiming for improvement. I am perhaps either more modest or more cynical)
3. I do believe that it is more sensible to have non-relativistic morals, that there are intangible morals and that it is worth persuing virtues and good morals.

UBI cannot exist because if you are in prison, you get most of your rights taken away.

In plus, if you using your rights and freedom to fuck with people and you are not willing to reform then you deserve to have your rights taken away.

 

[Lemmingwise]

UBI cannot exist because if you are in prison, you get most of your rights taken away.

In plus, if you using your rights and freedom to fuck with people and you are not willing to reform then you deserve to have your rights taken away.

Not sure what basic income has to do with this discussion. Do you mean stefan's UPB?

If that last bit is about China, I'd say that you're in for a rude awakening in the next three decades as we'll move towards being treated like insects or replacable cogs as they are.

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

Not sure what basic income has to do with this discussion. Do you mean stefan's UPB?

If that last bit is about China, I'd say that you're in for a rude awakening in the next three decades as we'll move towards being treated like insects or replacable cogs as they are.

I meant universal human rights.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I meant universal human rights.

What a globalist phrase.

--

To address that point then: I don't think the concept of prison negates the idea of universal human rights. It isn't sensible to have rights without them being counterbalanced by responsibilities and people in prison (at least in theory) have waived those responsibilities by breaking laws/infringing on other people's rights.

How could you safeguard rights if not for force/prison or something similar to deal with (repeat) offenders?

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

It isn't sensible to have rights without them being counterbalanced by responsibilities and people in prison (at least in theory) have waived those responsibilities by breaking laws/infringing on other people's rights.

They won't be counterbalanced anyway because:

1. Most prisoners are dumb (that's how they got caught in the first place) so they wouldn't be able to do most tasks anyway (even if they were forced.) You also have to account for aggression which makes it even harder.
2. Automation would take most of their jobs away.
3. Prisoners only serve as a source of revenue.

----

I guess my point is that universal human rights cannot exist with morals because someone will always use their rights to infringe on somebody else's rights. They would need to be taken away to protect society although not all.

I'm sorry for wasting your time.

 

[Emperor Julian]

but or moral code is still from that era and it didnt include nonwhites or woman.
Also the coloial era was the time most of Asia and Africa developed the most. they regressed from the level they were given by the white man, Indians cant use toilets anymore and Africans have very little useable infrastructure that wasnt build by colonial powers.

The colonial era's moral codes where clumsy self-rationalizations built to prevent the whole system crashing down under the weight of it's own hypocrisy and was still a pretty shitty place to live for most people.

 

[Stoneheart]

The colonial era's moral codes where clumsy self-rationalizations built to prevent the whole system crashing down under the weight of it's own hypocrisy and was still a pretty shitty place to live for most people.

So is it better now? Africans have it worse now than 200 years ago, South america is slowly drifting into the 3rd world and Asia is full of realy ugly forms of wage slavery without any hope of reforms.

we also dont realy have a moral system now. just liberals crying about stuff.

maybe you can answer my question from before...

"That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?
Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites? "

Thats alot more important for this topic as a bit more baseless crying about muh colonialism.

 

[Emperor Julian]

So is it better now? Africans have it worse now than 200 years ago, South america is slowly drifting into the 3rd world and Asia is full of realy ugly forms of wage slavery without any hope of reforms.

we also dont realy have a moral system now. just liberals crying about stuff.

maybe you can answer my question from before...

"That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?
Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites? "

Thats alot more important for this topic as a bit more baseless crying about muh colonialism.

Overall yes, as bad as today is the period was marked by far worse, furthermore our total removal or destabalization of existing power structures is often the cause of these problems.

Contextually yes considering economics, history and circustance. Not to mention the flawed nature of IQ as a measurement of intelligence anyway (or even personal merit). To explore your question would you consider an comparison of IQ in an aristocratic Kenyan Family vs an appalatian poverty striken area a valid comparison?

I hardly cry myself to sleep over the issue anymore than I loose sleep over the Cathar purges or such. Mistakes are only relavent when someone digs up a bad idea from the past. Not in the least because you didnt rebuke my point the beliefs were constructed to prevent the entire system from collapsing under it's own hypocrisy, cynicism and greed which relates back to the thread.

 

[jorgoth]

Human rights can't exist in such a framework, anyone saying otherwise is the moral-political-philosophical equivalent of somebody looting a house that they set on fire. They're promoting a relativistic/atomistic philosophy that's bound to inspire chaos, and yet they want all the benefits that living in a rule-of-law society would theoretically grant them.