4 ms·

So if this 60% majority decides to kill the 40% minority, would you still think it's okay to do so? If not, then how about 70%/30%? Or 90%/10%? Where are the li

• rayiner 13y ago
  The only lines are in the conscience of the sovereign majority.
• aric 13y ago
  It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted. Your statements in this thread are ethically rational. Cheers to a free mind such as yourself who won't be lured into circular reasoning by the happenstance of being born subject to arbitrary policy, and to a free mind who recognizes that borders are inhumane comparatively, in a natural sense, irrespective of the policies of other groups that claim territory and dictate the travels of others. Land grab has been a 'bumpy road' over the course of millennia, to say the least, yet mob rule within a framework of a [rule of law] does not make the effects of policy more justified ethically. Historically and presently, the lines are drawn under a simple premise: "might makes right." I believe it's eventually possible to change that mindset. It would take an entire "nation" to effectively lead by example, under the ironic creed of Lady Liberty. That's clearly a daunting prospect any time soon, at least for large nations. However, nurturing more people to have freer, conscientious minds who can extrapolate ethics from [law/might] are the important part of a path to getting there.
  • rayiner 13y ago
    From whence do these universal "ethics" arise? Do the descend from some supernatural deity? Are they a natural phenomenon, like gravity? Can you set up an experiment to detect their existence? There is nothing "free" about a mind that believes and children's fairy tales like universal "ethics."
    • aric 13y ago
      Human ethics are a construct of individual human minds. What "universal" ethics? You're misinterpreting my words if that's your response to them.