@SteveInCO I stand corrected.
Also, you constantly confuse things by using "freedom" and "right" as if they are synonyms. They are not. You start in a state of nature with complete freedom but no rights. Culture is shaped by the curtailing of freedoms for some in order to create rights for others. For example, the right to vote limits the freedom of the powerful to impose their will without restraint.
"Without order you have Anarchy"
But with too much order you suffer Fascism, which can easily make anarchy look like an all you can eat cupcake picknick. Their is a delacate balance that must be struck in regards to order, and it is often forgotten that mentaly healthy people, as social creatures, benafit from maintaining order on a personal level as well, without having to have a gun put to their head, or ending up in a north korean slave breading/torture camp.
I believe I stated myself clearly. That's exactly what I mean.
It's all about empathy as an evolved HUMAN trait. Not a cultural trait, racial, social trait, or personal trait. A HUMAN TRAIT.
It transcends culture because it is more intrinsic . . . more basic.
To the extent that empathy is a human trait as you describe it, it's relatively irrelevant to proving the existence of human rights other than legislated. All empathy would mean as that we think there ought to be justice in accordance with our feelings (subjectivity comes in here). And so we reify those impulses toward our concept of justice into enforceable laws.
I don't agree.
"But with too much order you suffer Fascism, which can easily make anarchy look like an all you can eat cupcake picknick. Their is a delacate balance that must be struck in regards to order, and it is often forgotten that mentaly healthy people, as social creatures, benafit from maintaining order on a personal level as well, without having to have a gun put to their head, or ending up in a north korean slave breading/torture camp."
Blaine, before I get to anything else, does the forum display differently on your computer? On mine it underlines misspellings.
If fascism is worse than anarchy, then why do peoples around the world constantly prefer fascism? Actually, if you have any proof that anarchy is preferable to fascism (and to be clear, I'm not in favor of either), please present it now. The plain fact is, while there are some horrifying examples of fascism, fascism governments can make the trains run on time and give the people a lot more predictability than anarchy can.
There is no such thing as human rights. What we have are in fact privileges which can only be upheld by a monopoly of violence by institutions such as states subscribing to the notion that there is some inherent worth to upholding these. Whenever this monopoly breaks down the so called "rights" go along with them. Legislated rights lack intrinsic agency and are worthless without elements to ensure their enforcement, thus the need for police and military.
It's funny, isn't it, that people with the mental acuity and strength to give up the belief in God still cling to romantic, fanciful, and imaginary notions like objective (factual) human rights. People get the rights they have only through the benevolent power of others or their own power, and only when those rights are enforced through law.
You can assert that all you want.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Belle Rose in Politics 8 hours ago.
Started by Shane Michaels in Small Talk. Last reply by SteveInCO 8 hours ago.
Started by Richard Foster in Politics 20 hours ago.
Started by Unseen in Politics yesterday.
Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman 1 hour ago.
Sunday School June 26th 2016
Sunday School June 19th 2016
Sunday School June 12th 2016
Posted by innerspaceboy on June 23, 2016 at 10:00pm
Posted by innerspaceboy on June 23, 2016 at 7:32pm
Computer Help Forums
© 2016 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.