Yeah, I guess. I mean if no one was there to protect my rights what good would any of your existentialist natural law bullsh1t do?So you believe rights come from the government? That rights didn't exist before someone wrote them down in the constitution? If you really believe that then you don't believe in rights at all, you just believe in privileges granted by the government.Laihendi
A plan to impeach Obama
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I have a right to live, therefore you do not have a right to murder me. If you murder me that doesn't mean I didn't have a right to live, that just means that you are a criminal thug who violated my right to live.LaihendiWhose to say I'm a criminal thug? No one is around. No authority presides over me in this scenario. There's two people in this situation. One who claims the right to life and the other is hungry and doesn't care. Now the only other person to judge me is in my stomach. If you can prove the existence of an almighty being who can see what I've done and judge me then fine, you can claim you have a right. If you're killed in this scenario that means you had no right as, I, the only other human there did not recognize it. I have a right to live, because I am alive, I want to be alive, and me being alive does not harm anyone. If you kill me then you violated my right to live and you are a murderer. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, what the government calls you, what the world calls you, or what nobody calls you because you are the last human alive. You are still a murderer, a criminal, and a thug. And you're dinner. So much for that right of yours.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I have a right to live, therefore you do not have a right to murder me. If you murder me that doesn't mean I didn't have a right to live, that just means that you are a criminal thug who violated my right to live.LaihendiWhose to say I'm a criminal thug? No one is around. No authority presides over me in this scenario. There's two people in this situation. One who claims the right to life and the other is hungry and doesn't care. Now the only other person to judge me is in my stomach. If you can prove the existence of an almighty being who can see what I've done and judge me then fine, you can claim you have a right. If you're killed in this scenario that means you had no right as, I, the only other human there did not recognize it. I have a right to live, because I am alive, I want to be alive, and me being alive does not harm anyone. If you kill me then you violated my right to live and you are a murderer. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, what the government calls you, what the world calls you, or what nobody calls you because you are the last human alive. You are still a murderer, a criminal, and a thug. So you have a right to live because you are alive, but an infant who is alive doesn't have that right?
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]My position on rights is one of the basic principles of Objectivism, so you are wrong.Planeforger
Cute. If there was any obviously correct conception of rights, then rights theorists would have all agreed it centuries ago and thus wouldn't continue to be debating it today.
I have a right to live, therefore you do not have a right to murder me. If you murder me that doesn't mean I didn't have a right to live, that just means that you are a criminal thug who violated my right to live.Laihendi
Meanwhile, you seem to be saying that children and people wth mental disorders can't conceptualise their rights to life, and thus you can freely kill them. Is that correct?
*edit* Hell, you also seem to be saying that people who disagree with your conception of the right to life do not enjoy a right to life.
Because rights are not relevant to someone/something that is incapable of even conceiving what it means to have rights. A tree cannot and will not ever be capable of understanding what it means to have rights, therefore a tree has no rights and it is not morally objectionable to cut one down and use it for whatever you will. It has no right to life. The same can be said for most animals. That is why it is not morally objectionable to swat a fly, use sheep for wool, etc.Laihendi
Some questions:
- How do you define 'conceiving of rights'? What's the threshold upon which you suddenly have that right? Do the uneducated or the stupid not have rights? Do people with slightly different conceptions of those rights not enjoy their protection? Do people educated in philosophy, political science and the law have stronger rights than others, since they would theoretically understand rights far better than anyone else?
- Do you have to be constantly coceiving of those rights to be shielded by them? Do sleeping people have rights?
- Are we allowed to conceive of any rights that we like, or is there a set free-standing list somewhere, which we automatically fall under as soon as we recognise the truth of it? If there is a free-standing list, what are they, and how can we possibly all agree on them?
- If we have to conceive of these rights in order to enliven them, do they simply not exist until people have first thought them up? If so, how are they not different from privileges, since they don't exist independently or apply to all humans?
- How can we possibly found a legal system upon concepts of rights that don't come into existence until people think of them, and which don't seem to have an agreed-upon list?
- Also, what distinguishes your rights from a mere set of personal moral principles, if no authority is ever going to adopt or enforce your conception of rights? You can argue the universal truth of them all you want, but that won't have any affect on the real world.
1. Objectivism did not exist as a branch of philosophy hundreds of years ago, and also you are making the assumption that something is true just because a bunch of people agree that it is. If you read the page linked below you will understand why this assumption is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
2. No you are not within your rights to kill animals and children at will. Only animals that are not owned by anyone, or those you own yourself. This is why it is not morally objectionable to hunt, or slaughter livestock. Children are growths of their parents' bodies which means they are also their property until they develop into independent-minded self-aware critically-thinking individuals. No parent would kill his/her children so this is a moot point.
3. If you recognize that you are alive, that others are alive, and that you and others both want to be alive, and that by living you are not infringing upon the other's desire to live, then you have a right to live.
4. The mind is still active and aware of its existence when people are asleep. That is why people dream.
5. The right to live exists, regardless of what governing bodies say/do. Any government that contradicts one's right to live is an institutionalized criminal organization.
I have a right to live, because I am alive, I want to be alive, and me being alive does not harm anyone. If you kill me then you violated my right to live and you are a murderer. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, what the government calls you, what the world calls you, or what nobody calls you because you are the last human alive. You are still a murderer, a criminal, and a thug.Laihendi
Not to distract from my bigger set of questions, but...
-> Is this desire to be alive active or passive? If someone is having a bad day and says "I wish I'd never been born", would killing them not make you a murderer? If someone hasn't really thought about it, would killing them count?
-> How do you know that animals don't want to be alive? Is your right to life enlivened only by higher-order desires, rather than base desires like the want for food/water/sex?
-> If it doesn't matter what any government, world or person calls the murderer, why does it matter what your conception of rights calls the murderer?
-> What happens when rights conflict? Take the right to free speech and the right to freedom from discrimination. They clearly clash, so who would win?
-> For that matter, if your rights are defined by not hurting others, wouldn't we not have a right to free speech? Words can be extremely harmful to both emotions and one's reptutation, after all.
Yeah, I guess. I mean if no one was there to protect my rights what good would any of your existentialist natural law bullsh1t do? Hitler acted within Germany's laws when he murdered 12 million people. Therefore you believe he was within his rights when he committed genocide.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
So you believe rights come from the government? That rights didn't exist before someone wrote them down in the constitution? If you really believe that then you don't believe in rights at all, you just believe in privileges granted by the government.Aljosa23
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Yeah, I guess. I mean if no one was there to protect my rights what good would any of your existentialist natural law bullsh1t do? Hitler acted within Germany's laws when he murdered 12 million people. Therefore you believe he was within his rights when he committed genocide.Okay.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
So you believe rights come from the government? That rights didn't exist before someone wrote them down in the constitution? If you really believe that then you don't believe in rights at all, you just believe in privileges granted by the government.Laihendi
That doesn't change anything I've said.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I have a right to live, because I am alive, I want to be alive, and me being alive does not harm anyone. If you kill me then you violated my right to live and you are a murderer. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, what the government calls you, what the world calls you, or what nobody calls you because you are the last human alive. You are still a murderer, a criminal, and a thug.Planeforger
Not to distract from my bigger set of questions, but...
-> Is this desire to be alive active or passive? If someone is having a bad day and says "I wish I'd never been born", would killing them not make you a murderer? If someone hasn't really thought about it, would killing them count?
-> How do you know that animals don't want to be alive? Is your right to life enlivened only by higher-order desires, rather than base desires like the want for food/water/sex?
-> If it doesn't matter what any government, world or person calls the murderer, why does it matter what your conception of rights calls the murderer?
-> What happens when rights conflict? Take the right to free speech and the right to freedom from discrimination. They clearly clash, so who would win?
-> For that matter, if your rights are defined by not hurting others, wouldn't we not have a right to free speech? Words can be extremely harmful to both emotions and one's reptutation, after all.
Freedom from discrimination is not a right. No one has a right to determine how someone else should think. That is slavery. The right to life does not conflict. I am not infringing upon anyone's right to live by being alive myself. If an animal is not self aware then it has no rights. If it is not capable of recognizing itself as an individual it has no rights. It cannot value its life if it cannot recognize its own existence. Words don't hurt people. A man is responsible for his own emotions, and reputation is a meaningless social abstraction.And you're dinner. So much for that right of yours. Ace6301A right means that something SHOULD be a certain way, not that something WILL be a certain way. The existence of murderous criminal thugs does not make the concept of rights nonexistent.
I'm curious Lai, in this country you have a right to a lawyer if you're criminally charged. If a person isn't aware/doesn't understand that he has this right does that right become null and void for him?worlock77In a practical sense he might as well not have that right, because he's incapable of exercising a right that he has no knowledge of.
[QUOTE="Planeforger"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I have a right to live, because I am alive, I want to be alive, and me being alive does not harm anyone. If you kill me then you violated my right to live and you are a murderer. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, what the government calls you, what the world calls you, or what nobody calls you because you are the last human alive. You are still a murderer, a criminal, and a thug.Laihendi
Not to distract from my bigger set of questions, but...
-> Is this desire to be alive active or passive? If someone is having a bad day and says "I wish I'd never been born", would killing them not make you a murderer? If someone hasn't really thought about it, would killing them count?
-> How do you know that animals don't want to be alive? Is your right to life enlivened only by higher-order desires, rather than base desires like the want for food/water/sex?
-> If it doesn't matter what any government, world or person calls the murderer, why does it matter what your conception of rights calls the murderer?
-> What happens when rights conflict? Take the right to free speech and the right to freedom from discrimination. They clearly clash, so who would win?
-> For that matter, if your rights are defined by not hurting others, wouldn't we not have a right to free speech? Words can be extremely harmful to both emotions and one's reptutation, after all.
Freedom from discrimination is not a right. No one has a right to determine how someone else should think. That is slavery. The right to life does not conflict. I am not infringing upon anyone's right to live by being alive myself. If an animal is not self aware then it has no rights. If it is not capable of recognizing itself as an individual it has no rights. It cannot value its life if it cannot recognize its own existence. Words don't hurt people. A man is responsible for his own emotions, and reputation is a meaningless social abstraction. If you think animals are not self aware, not capable of recognising themselves as individuals, cannot recognise their own existence then you're actually an even bigger idiot than I previously thought.1. Objectivism did not exist as a branch of philosophy hundreds of years ago, and also you are making the assumption that something is true just because a bunch of people agree that it is. If you read the page linked below you will understand why this assumption is wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentm_ad_populum
2. No you are not within your rights to kill animals and children at will. Only animals that are not owned by anyone, or those you own yourself. This is why it is not morally objectionable to hunt, or slaughter livestock. Children are growths of their parents' bodies which means they are also their property until they develop into independent-minded self-aware critically-thinking individuals. No parent would kill his/her children so this is a moot point.
3. If you recognize that you are alive, that others are alive, and that you and others both want to be alive, and that by living you are not infringing upon the other's desire to live, then you have a right to live.
4. The mind is still active and aware of its existence when people are asleep. That is why people dream.
5. The right to live exists, regardless of what governing bodies say/do. Any government that contradicts one's right to live is an institutionalized criminal organizationLaihendi
1. That wasn't what I was saying.
I was saying that if there was some definite, sure-fire way of determining what our rights are - to the point where you can say with every ounce of confidence that every other theory is wrong - then surely every rights theorist should be able to logically reach that same conclusion through the application of logic, reason and objectivity. If the theory was flawless, it should automatically be able to convince all but the most stubborn of theorists; and yet that clearly hasn't happened. Meanwhile, if the theory has any flaws at all, a rational person would have to acknowledge that other theories could potentially be true.
2. Children are the property of their parents. Huh. So, theoretically, if people didn't educate children, if they didn't foster crticially-thinking rational minds, if they kept people brainwashed and stupid, then...the stupid people could rightfully be owned as pets or slaves? Oh, and I'd argue that nobody owns orphans, so I suppose they can be killed.
4. That's not so different from general theories of human rights, except that under your conception, not everyone gets the right to life. 'course, that label still has no impetus in the real world, so...
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Planeforger"]Freedom from discrimination is not a right. No one has a right to determine how someone else should think. That is slavery. The right to life does not conflict. I am not infringing upon anyone's right to live by being alive myself. If an animal is not self aware then it has no rights. If it is not capable of recognizing itself as an individual it has no rights. It cannot value its life if it cannot recognize its own existence. Words don't hurt people. A man is responsible for his own emotions, and reputation is a meaningless social abstraction. If you think animals are not self aware, not capable of recognising themselves as individuals, cannot recognise their own existence then you're actually an even bigger idiot than I previously thought. Please provide me with the evidence that a cow is a self-aware individual. I have never heard of a cow exhibiting ego. Are you even capable of having a serious exchange of ideas, or do you always just call people idiots when you disagree with them?Not to distract from my bigger set of questions, but...
-> Is this desire to be alive active or passive? If someone is having a bad day and says "I wish I'd never been born", would killing them not make you a murderer? If someone hasn't really thought about it, would killing them count?
-> How do you know that animals don't want to be alive? Is your right to life enlivened only by higher-order desires, rather than base desires like the want for food/water/sex?
-> If it doesn't matter what any government, world or person calls the murderer, why does it matter what your conception of rights calls the murderer?
-> What happens when rights conflict? Take the right to free speech and the right to freedom from discrimination. They clearly clash, so who would win?
-> For that matter, if your rights are defined by not hurting others, wouldn't we not have a right to free speech? Words can be extremely harmful to both emotions and one's reptutation, after all.
worlock77
A right means that something SHOULD be a certain way, not that something WILL be a certain way. The existence of murderous criminal thugs does not make the concept of rights nonexistent. Awww, you think concepts are tangible. That's cute. Rights exist when we make them exist and we do this through societal pressure and/or government. Without a society there is no rights. If we added another person to this desert island scenario, we'll call him Big Joe, then maybe we can have rights. Big Joe agrees with you. He thinks all three of us have the right to live. He's a nice passive guy, spends his Saturdays helping the homeless and taking care of kittens when he's not starving to death on a desert island. Because Joe is 6 foot 8 and 320 pounds of pure muscle, has a black belt in karate and sleeps with one eye open I know eating either of you is out of the question. Boom. Rights. Society.[QUOTE="Ace6301"] And you're dinner. So much for that right of yours. Laihendi
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]1. Objectivism did not exist as a branch of philosophy hundreds of years ago, and also you are making the assumption that something is true just because a bunch of people agree that it is. If you read the page linked below you will understand why this assumption is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentm_ad_populum
2. No you are not within your rights to kill animals and children at will. Only animals that are not owned by anyone, or those you own yourself. This is why it is not morally objectionable to hunt, or slaughter livestock. Children are growths of their parents' bodies which means they are also their property until they develop into independent-minded self-aware critically-thinking individuals. No parent would kill his/her children so this is a moot point.
3. If you recognize that you are alive, that others are alive, and that you and others both want to be alive, and that by living you are not infringing upon the other's desire to live, then you have a right to live.
4. The mind is still active and aware of its existence when people are asleep. That is why people dream.
5. The right to live exists, regardless of what governing bodies say/do. Any government that contradicts one's right to live is an institutionalized criminal organizationPlaneforger
1. That wasn't what I was saying.
I was saying that if there was some definite, sure-fire way of determining what our rights are - to the point where you can say with every ounce of confidence that every other theory is wrong - then surely every rights theorist should be able to logically reach that same conclusion through the application of logic, reason and objectivity. If the theory was flawless, it should automatically be able to convince all but the most stubborn of theorists; and yet that clearly hasn't happened. Meanwhile, if the theory has any flaws at all, a rational person would have to acknowledge that other theories could potentially be true.
2. Children are the property of their parents. Huh. So, theoretically, if people didn't educate children, if they didn't foster crticially-thinking rational minds, if they kept people brainwashed and stupid, then...the stupid people could rightfully be owned as pets or slaves? Oh, and I'd argue that nobody owns orphans, so I suppose they can be killed.
4. That's not so different from general theories of human rights, except that under your conception, not everyone gets the right to life. 'course, that label still has no impetus in the real world, so...
It is possible for massive amounts of people (including those who are "educated") to be wrong. Religion is proof enough of that. Even if one of the world's religions is somehow right, that still leaves at least 5 billion or so people being wrong. People disagreeing with a sound theory means that the person is simply incapable of understanding the theory. If a person is incapable of "knowing" that he has a right to live without having it told to him by someone else, then he probably is mentally incapable of grasping that concept anyways. Education, therefore, is not relevant.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A right means that something SHOULD be a certain way, not that something WILL be a certain way. The existence of murderous criminal thugs does not make the concept of rights nonexistent. Awww, you think concepts are tangible. That's cute. Rights exist when we make them exist and we do this through societal pressure and/or government. Without a society there is no rights. If we added another person to this desert island scenario, we'll call him Big Joe, then maybe we can have rights. Big Joe agrees with you. He thinks all three of us have the right to live. He's a nice passive guy, spends his Saturdays helping the homeless and taking care of kittens when he's not starving to death on a desert island. Because Joe is 6 foot 8 and 320 pounds of pure muscle, has a black belt in karate and sleeps with one eye open I know eating either of you is out of the question. Boom. Rights. Society. Obviously rights aren't relevant if there is only one person in the world capable of conceptualizing what it means to have rights. Rights are an inherent necessity to interacting with other self-aware individuals. You just proved me to be correct and somehow you believe the opposite. If you think that the only reason it is wrong to murder Joe is because you can't actually murder him because he's stronger than you, then you are probably a sociopath.[QUOTE="Ace6301"] And you're dinner. So much for that right of yours. Ace6301
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]A right means that something SHOULD be a certain way, not that something WILL be a certain way. The existence of murderous criminal thugs does not make the concept of rights nonexistent. Awww, you think concepts are tangible. That's cute. Rights exist when we make them exist and we do this through societal pressure and/or government. Without a society there is no rights. If we added another person to this desert island scenario, we'll call him Big Joe, then maybe we can have rights. Big Joe agrees with you. He thinks all three of us have the right to live. He's a nice passive guy, spends his Saturdays helping the homeless and taking care of kittens when he's not starving to death on a desert island. Because Joe is 6 foot 8 and 320 pounds of pure muscle, has a black belt in karate and sleeps with one eye open I know eating either of you is out of the question. Boom. Rights. Society. Obviously rights aren't relevant if there is only one person in the world capable of conceptualizing what it means to have rights. Rights are an inherent necessity to interacting with other self-aware individuals. You just proved me to be correct and somehow you believe the opposite. If you think that the only reason it is wrong to murder Joe is because you can't actually murder him because he's stronger than you, then you are probably a sociopath. Actually you've just agreed that rights do not exist inherently if you believe a single human being does not have rights. Thanks for playing. Also in the scenario we're all starving to death. Letting Joe live ahead of my own interests is altruism. My original claim: Rights only exist if there is authority to back them up. Your original claim: Rights are inherent to those who can conceptualize them. Anyway imma go reach some truths.[QUOTE="Ace6301"] And you're dinner. So much for that right of yours. Laihendi
Actually you've just agreed that rights do not exist inherently if you believe a single human being does not have rights. Thanks for playing. Also in the scenario we're all starving to death. Letting Joe live ahead of my own interests is altruism. Ace6301I am trying to remember the name of the fallacy where you say so much fallacious/irrelevant garbage at once that the other person doesn't even know what to say in response. Anyways, rights are an inherent necessity to mutual coexistence between self-aware individuals. You can say that I said otherwise all you want, but that doesn't make it true. The concept of rights is not relevant to one who is the only person in the world. There is no need of property rights, because he can take whatever he wants without regard for anyone else. There is no one else to claim property, therefore there is no need for him to establish that a specific piece of property is his own. The same applies for the other rights. And you don't have to be an altruist to recognize someone else's right to live. That makes no sense at all. The reason I do not murder people is not that I am concerned for their welfare, but because I recognize them as a self-aware individual who also has a right to life - an equal.
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]It is impossible to prove a negative, however it is possible to prove a positive. The burden of proof is on those saying that animals are self aware, because until there is evidence to suggest that they are, there is no reason to believe that they are.LaihendiIf an animal were not self aware then it would make no effort to preserve its own life. I guess you have not heard of instinct? Do you really believe bacteria is self aware? Somehow it manages to preserve its own life. However I have never seen bacteria exhibit ego. Or plants. Or fungi. Or most animals. Have you ever seen bacteria actually fight when treated with antibiotics? (Fight mind you, not merely replicate.) I have not. I have, however seen many animals fight, respond with violence and aggression, when physically threatened. I've seen animals seek shelter from cold, from rain, etc. I've seen animals cower or run in fear. Nothing that is not self aware demonstrates these behaviors.
lai would you like me to explain to you how a plant works?
[QUOTE="worlock77"]And now Laihendi's an armchair psychologist as well. Cute.LaihendiAd hominem + appeal to ridicule I don't think you ever refuted anything I've ever said. Not even a single sentence.
Everyone on the internet, especially forums, automatically grow an armchair and start spouting off nonsense believing they are an expert in X field. Reading through this current argument, there isn't a point of discussing things with you since nothing changes, your rhetoric keeps going and going and going. Seeing as you believe you're never wrong, especially since others have refuted your odd "rights" claims.
Ad hominem + appeal to ridicule I don't think you ever refuted anything I've ever said. Not even a single sentence.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]And now Laihendi's an armchair psychologist as well. Cute.StrifeDelivery
Everyone on the internet, especially forums, automatically grow an armchair and start spouting off nonsense believing they are an expert in X field. Reading through this current argument, there isn't a point of discussing things with you since nothing changes, your rhetoric keeps going and going and going. Seeing as you believe you're never wrong, especially since others have refuted your odd "rights" claims.
You guys keep saying this, however I have yet to see a successful refutation of anything that I have posted here.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I really don't understand why you are so eager to prove to the world that you don't have rights. I don't understand why you are so eager to convince everyone that the only reason murder is wrong is that it is illegal. Was murder morally acceptable before there was a law that said otherwise? You really seem to hate the idea of someone having the right to live and pursue happiness.LaihendiMan, I must have done a better job than I thought for you to have completely abandoned your usual rhetoric garbage and instead resort to ad hominems and strawmen. A reasoned argument is not rhetoric. Anyways, your argument is completely devoid of rationale so it is clear that you are determined to stick to your belief that rights do not exist. It is not an ad hominem to make that observation about you. You believe that a right only exists if it can be enforced. Therefore you believe that there is nothing wrong with murdering someone, because if that man's life couldn't be defended then he didn't have a right to live anyways. You are clearly hostile to the concept of people having a right to live. Again, this is not an ad hominem - it is an observation. It's amusing that you and the others act like I'm a monster for saying animals and babies don't have rights, and then you say that no one has rights and it's fine to murder people as long as there isn't a law against it because apparently no one has an inherent right to live. Even your logical train of thought is irrational. Impressive. Rand truly was an excellent troll. You believe animals and babies shouldn't have rights in a society. I don't believe there there can be such a thing as rights until there is an enforcement of them. We make rights because we wish to have them. We don't wish to have them because they exist. If you made a society of people who didn't believe in the concept of property then the right of property does not exist amongst them. If they choose to enforce the idea of property then it exists. This isn't a hard concept. Things that exist exist and things that don't don't.
The only thing that Obama could be impeached for is war crimes. Just like Bush. They are both guilty of them.
No, you have not. If you believe that morality follows law, then you believe there is nothing inherently wrong with murdering someone. You believe that if there wasn't a law specifically saying that murder is illegal, then it would be perfectly fine for people to murder whoever they want.LaihendiActually I believe that law follows morality but that not everyone has the same morality. If you had a society that thought murdering people was fine then there would be no law against murder and thus no right to life. Society of communists wouldn't believe in a right to property. Rights exist because our current society wants them to and has established government and authority to enforce those morals. Man came first, then we made morality. Again if you can prove God exists and that he gave us our morality and that all men believe in the same moral code then you can be right. Until then you are not.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]No, you have not. If you believe that morality follows law, then you believe there is nothing inherently wrong with murdering someone. You believe that if there wasn't a law specifically saying that murder is illegal, then it would be perfectly fine for people to murder whoever they want.Ace6301Actually I believe that law follows morality but that not everyone has the same morality. If you had a society that thought murdering people was fine then there would be no law against murder and thus no right to life. Society of communists wouldn't believe in a right to property. Rights exist because our current society wants them to and has established government and authority to enforce those morals. Man came first, then we made morality. Again if you can prove God exists and that he gave us our morality and that all men believe in the same moral code then you can be right. Until then you are not. So you believe consensus determines morality? So if I live surrounded by a group of people who believe it's okay to murder me, they have a right to, and I don't have a right to live, because society has arbitrarily decided it's okay to murder me? That makes no sense at all.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment