3 ms·

I have no idea why you're citing a government website on an ethical question. You realize that law and policy is just something a bunch of people decided was a

I have no idea why you're citing a government website on an ethical question. You realize that law and policy is just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea? The distinction between rights versus privileges, insofar as it is defined by law and policy, has nothing to do with ethics.

throwaway8879 7y ago
So "law and policy is just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea". What do you think ethics is? If we're going to be really strict, then everything about humans is "just a bunch of people decided was a good idea".
- arcticbull 7y ago
  The criticism is that using what the government said to justify what the government then said when both are opinions is weak and circular.
  - ymolodtsov 7y ago
    And government’s opinions change far more frequently than ethics.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Government tends not to opine on ethics in official communiques
User23 7y ago
Do you believe, as I do, that the foundation of ethics is supernatural? If not, then ethics is also just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea too in your world view. And a democratically elected representative legislative body is as good a bunch of people as any to do so. Edit: this really is the cultural differences thread
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > Do you believe, as I do, that the foundation of ethics is supernatural? In other words: if you don't believe in the supernatural you can't have ethics?
  - User23 7y ago
    I would expect commenters here to have better reading comprehension skills. I explicitly allowed that one could have ethics based on arbitrary consensus. That said, your discomfort is natural. After all, if the foundation of ethics is purely natural, then what is it? Logic perhaps? What logic tells us that murder is wrong, when logically murder is sometimes advantageous? Is it science then? What science tells us that rape is wrong, when evolution tells us fitness is propagating genes? Then is it aesthetics? Are goodness and beauty the same? Or is there an objective standard of right and wrong that isn't dependent on any human being's whims or self-interest? If so, what is its source?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      I would suggest that rather than critiquing the reading skills of the people commenting on HN to start off from the position that maybe what you wrote was not un-ambiguous. The way you write is suggestive (including the reply you wrote) and that is why I asked for your clarification.
      - User23 7y ago
        It’s revealing that you offer nothing but (feigned) incomprehension and quibbles. You can easily make your point by offering a purely natural foundation for ethics that isn’t just the arbitrary desires of whatever prestige group makes the rules. Want to try being substantive?

throwaway8879 7y ago

So "law and policy is just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea". What do you think ethics is? If we're going to be really strict, then everything about humans is "just a bunch of people decided was a good idea".

arcticbull 7y ago
The criticism is that using what the government said to justify what the government then said when both are opinions is weak and circular.
- ymolodtsov 7y ago
  And government’s opinions change far more frequently than ethics.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Government tends not to opine on ethics in official communiques

User23 7y ago

Do you believe, as I do, that the foundation of ethics is supernatural? If not, then ethics is also just something a bunch of people decided was a good idea too in your world view. And a democratically elected representative legislative body is as good a bunch of people as any to do so. Edit: this really is the cultural differences thread

jacquesm 7y ago
> Do you believe, as I do, that the foundation of ethics is supernatural? In other words: if you don't believe in the supernatural you can't have ethics?
- User23 7y ago
  I would expect commenters here to have better reading comprehension skills. I explicitly allowed that one could have ethics based on arbitrary consensus. That said, your discomfort is natural. After all, if the foundation of ethics is purely natural, then what is it? Logic perhaps? What logic tells us that murder is wrong, when logically murder is sometimes advantageous? Is it science then? What science tells us that rape is wrong, when evolution tells us fitness is propagating genes? Then is it aesthetics? Are goodness and beauty the same? Or is there an objective standard of right and wrong that isn't dependent on any human being's whims or self-interest? If so, what is its source?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I would suggest that rather than critiquing the reading skills of the people commenting on HN to start off from the position that maybe what you wrote was not un-ambiguous. The way you write is suggestive (including the reply you wrote) and that is why I asked for your clarification.
    - User23 7y ago
      It’s revealing that you offer nothing but (feigned) incomprehension and quibbles. You can easily make your point by offering a purely natural foundation for ethics that isn’t just the arbitrary desires of whatever prestige group makes the rules. Want to try being substantive?