Originally Posted by skysaw
Tao, I think you misunderstood Moonbeam's remark. "Say what?" is a standard response to something that is worded in a confusing way. I didn't understand that original sentence until I read it a few times either.
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Exactly. I get it now, but the first time I read it I'd had some wine and it just didn't make any sense at all to me, no matter how many times I read it. My fault, sorry.
Sorry about that, and thanks for the assist, skysaw--I was running on 3-5 hours sleep 3 days in a row, so my syntax may have suffered.
Originally Posted by wasup
I think it is rather clear you did not read my post... the whole largest paragraph addresses your question.
mkay...
Originally Posted by wasup
Human rights? Well let's start off... what are "human rights?" That phrase in itself seems to project a sort of... almost religious point of view. "Human rights" suggest we all inherently have the same set of rights.
I often tend to turn to a utilitarian point of view when considering human rights. Pretty straightforward, but I don't see how my view is really that different from Christians. People tend to think atheists are uncivilized barbarians who think nothing of killing people and fetuses all the time. It is rather clear your viewpoint on atheists from "What secular basis is there, if any, for universal human rights?" Please respond to my question: Why would atheists possibly be less keen on human rights than Christians? In fact, I think it is rather weak to have a belief in a god -- or to be more specific, a fear of punishment -- be one's motivation for morality. Here is a favorite quote of mine: "Mankind will find strength in itself to live for virtue, even without believing in the immortality of the soul! Find it in the love of liberty, equality, fraternity . . ." There is little legitimate reason for an atheist to not have morals. And example tells us this, regardless of the technical explanation. How many "barbarian atheists" do you know? History tells us more wars have ever been fought in the name of religion than Atheism. In fact... more than anything. The atheist process does not go "Hey, there is no god. I will not be punished for what I do. Why not rape someone?" I would go ahead and say most atheists are much less likely to do this than Christians. Atheists consider life more sacred: we only get one. Immortality of the soul depreciates the beauty of life. Christians are comforted by a "second life." Furthermore, atheists can still see the beauty in things, have morals and ethics, realize why murder is bad. It is simply despicable to have morality solely for fear of "retribution."
Do you really believe religious-based morality derives (directly or indirectly) from more than fear of punishment?
Anyways,
The motivation to support human rights for me might be the same as Christians, but such a motivation should not come from religious reasons.
I bolded everything that seems somewhat relevant to the question, and it doesn't amount to much of a "rational basis." Your belief in human rights (and you seem to be asserting one, despite finding the concept "almost religious") is utilitarian (though you don't say how), derives from a "love of liberty, equality, <and> fraternity," (this comes closest to a rational basis, but is in fact a value judgement) and "might be the same as Christians." The rest of the post argues the Atheism vs. Religion talking point "atheists don't have morals," which no one brought up.
I'm just offering an opportunity to articulate your views on the matter, not in opposition to Christianity or religion, but in terms of your own reasoned basis for what you believe.
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I wasn't really addressing social progress whatsoever. I was merely attempting to describe the most logical set of rights that a successful ruling class should impose without any influence from a higher moral code.
Ah, that gives me a little better context for what you were saying. The interesting thing to me is that you immediately broke the issue down into a class struggle and assumed the ruling class would want nothing but more personal wealth and power. I wouldn't call those values "logical," as I would expect them to lead to greater suffering for both the ruling and the ruled, but certainly there are people in power all over the world who hold those values.
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Oh go read a philosophy book on the subject then; I'm surprised you haven't already.
Discussions with philosophy books are rather one-sided, and I'm interested in a diversity of opinions and reasoning on the matter. It's odd that everyone so quick to tout their well reasoned, well informed views on life, the universe and everything suddenly vanish when asked to show their work on a single softball question that doesn't appear on the standard A. vs. R. curriculum.
You, Wasup, and UM all tried to divert the issue back to the vetted talking points as surely as Baptists quoting scripture.
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
As usual (not you as usual, theists as usual), you are mixing up what is, and what you would like there to be. Asking for "proof" that people should be treated fairly is not the same as asking for "proof" that a magic creator exists. The first is philosophical, and obviously not universally agreed upon. The latter is scientific, and open to debate of course, but may be resolved past a point of reasonable doubt. I realize these areas may overlap somewhat, but no one can give you hard proof that "human rights" exist, obviously.
Yes, I see. Your emotional, intuitive belief reinforced by experience is completely different from their emotional, intuitive belief reinforced by experience, because you can say theirs in a way that sounds silly. In what sense is the perception of an overarching intelligence at work in human experience and the natural world more "scientific" than the question of human rights? Yes, the more literal, scriptural interpretations of that perception are pretty ridiculous, but so is discarding a huge body of human wisdom because it doesn't fit the currently fashionable scientific paradigm. I know, "But science is the one authoritative source of truth!"
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
I say your questions are meaningless. Maybe I still don't understand. Let me look at the original one again.
I tried to keep them open ended and offer a number of approaches so people could define their own terms and express their own rationales. Only skysaw and Xaqaria so far have been willing to do that.
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
What do you mean by "progress"? I would assume improved human rights to be the definition of progress.
I would agree that they are a vector of progress, though I would say our relationship with the rest of the natural world and our general well being figure pretty prominently as well. "Improved or expanded human rights are a foundation of social progress" could be the beginnings of a rational, secular basis for supporting human rights. Wasn't so hard, was it?
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
There is none, rape and pillage at will.
I am nowhere making the assertion that there can be no rational basis for human rights. I assume people have numerous different reasons for supporting them, opposing them, or finding them irrelevant.
Every thread I make addressing avowed atheists leaves me with less faith in the rationality of the position and the people who espouse it.
|
|
Bookmarks