Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
So basically you believe rights and laws come from a place that allow people to get along with eachother. Rights and laws are there so communities can funciton in an orderly way. So if in certain societies, if female circumscission, or throwing widows into their late husband's funeral pyre help those societies to function in an orderly and peaceful manner, then we cannot critisize them? I believe such activities are a violation of the universal moral code and are wrong, no matter what practical application, or rational behind such customs.
I also believe that almost everyone on this board agrees with that however it will be interesting to see who admits to it.
|
I didn't say that rights, law or mores come from a desire for people to get along. I am saying that laws, rights, mores, etc. must be balanced in order for people to
survive.
I believe that female circumcision, if it is done involuntarily, is wrong. It violates the principal (the more, if you will) that people should be free from unwanted invasions upon their person.
The same can be said of cultural customs of casting wives, servants, etc. in the funeral pyre of a dead male. (Interestingly, these customs tend only to be applied to the upper stratum of a culture.) This custom violates the more that it is wrong to take a human life.
One could say that these are examples of
actions that violate an absolute
principal. However, how can we take action to prevent these violations of the principal if it is absolutely wrong to violate another's freedom of action or to take another's life?
