5 ms·

So if society decides that redheads have no right to live, then they have no right to live, end of story? This is a dangerous school of thought, authoritarian

by V-2 11y ago

So if society decides that redheads have no right to live, then they have no right to live, end of story? This is a dangerous school of thought, authoritarian in spirit - the state as the source of ethics and the ultimate moral authority (Hegel's view). The opposing concept is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

marrs 11y ago
How did you construe that from what samastur said?
icebraining 11y ago
Society and the State are not the same; they can, and have often been in conflict over exactly that issue.
- V-2 11y ago
  Of course, but when it comes to making decisions (including decisions that are granting rights), societies have to rely on institutions they built.
samastur 11y ago
OK, let's take the third paragraph of your link as an example, where it basically describes how Natural law forms a philosophical bedrock of US society. Why were documents resulting from it accepted by society (eventually, more or less)? Clearly from the same page there is not just one and societies existed and still do that don't share the same underpinning. They could have turned it down and go with something else. My point is that they didn't because this was close enough to existing shared values. That doesn't mean it matched anyone's perfectly or that you can't move them over time, but they are not imposed. Well, they may be for a while under occupation of a stronger force, but surely that is not what you argue for. In your hypothetical example it would mean yes, they don't in that society. Like converting to a different religion can get you killed in some places even if it is completely unimaginable where I am from. I am certainly not agreeing with or defending choices of every society under sun.
- V-2 11y ago
  > In your hypothetical example it would mean yes, they don't in that society So you mean "rights" in descriptive sense, you're talking about the de facto rights. This obviously excludes rights that are legally violated, but which are still there (from ethical point of view). If someone asks why people should have a certain right (as nthcolumn did), they clearly mean rights in the latter sense of the word. Otherwise it's not an answer because it's circular logic: why would society grant you these rights? Because society grants you these rights. Well, like every tautology it's true ("technically", as you put it), only it's of no use :)

by V-2 11y ago

marrs 11y ago

How did you construe that from what samastur said?

icebraining 11y ago

Society and the State are not the same; they can, and have often been in conflict over exactly that issue.

V-2 11y ago
Of course, but when it comes to making decisions (including decisions that are granting rights), societies have to rely on institutions they built.

samastur 11y ago

OK, let's take the third paragraph of your link as an example, where it basically describes how Natural law forms a philosophical bedrock of US society. Why were documents resulting from it accepted by society (eventually, more or less)? Clearly from the same page there is not just one and societies existed and still do that don't share the same underpinning. They could have turned it down and go with something else. My point is that they didn't because this was close enough to existing shared values. That doesn't mean it matched anyone's perfectly or that you can't move them over time, but they are not imposed. Well, they may be for a while under occupation of a stronger force, but surely that is not what you argue for. In your hypothetical example it would mean yes, they don't in that society. Like converting to a different religion can get you killed in some places even if it is completely unimaginable where I am from. I am certainly not agreeing with or defending choices of every society under sun.

V-2 11y ago
> In your hypothetical example it would mean yes, they don't in that society So you mean "rights" in descriptive sense, you're talking about the de facto rights. This obviously excludes rights that are legally violated, but which are still there (from ethical point of view). If someone asks why people should have a certain right (as nthcolumn did), they clearly mean rights in the latter sense of the word. Otherwise it's not an answer because it's circular logic: why would society grant you these rights? Because society grants you these rights. Well, like every tautology it's true ("technically", as you put it), only it's of no use :)