LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 3,654
1 members and 3,653 guests
Hank Chinaski
Most users ever online was 12,534, 02-14-2026 at 03:04 PM.
View Single Post
Old 10-08-2005, 08:10 PM   #2353
Spanky
For what it's worth
 
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Provided someone doesn't also do harm to anyone else, he/she should have the right to diminish his/her lifespan
And in what cultures and in what circumstances do we have these rights.


Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Either we are endowed with an unalienable right to liberty or we aren't Spanky. You can't have it both ways. Are you really suggesting the state whould be able to medicate someone against their will?
You really are slow aren't you. I was pointing out that not all rules are for survival You were the one who said that. I am not suggesting anything. You at one point said all rules are for survival and then said that it was wrong to violate someone person against their will. Your two principals seem to contradict eachother.



Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk The rest of this is ridiculous. I have never suggested that anyone could defend genocide. If you want to know what I believe, ask me. Don't throw up straw men, especially ones as ridiculous as this one.
I never said you did defend genocide. I am saying that you can't critize Genocide if you are a moral relativist. Moral relativists believe that differenct morals and rules are appropriate for different cultures and countrys. Some morals and rules works in some cultures and don't work in other cultures. Therefore it is wrong for one culture to impose its values on another culture.

That is why moral relativists think our invasion of Iraq is so heinous, because we are trying to impose "western values" on Iraq. I don't believe in western values. I think if values exist they are universal. I don't think morals are relative. I think they are universal to all cultures and countrys.

Genocide is an absolute wrong. A moral relativist would say that Genocide could be OK, it just depends on which culture you are talking about.

I think you are confusing moral relativsim with the fact that moral codes (and legal codes) have to be sophisticated and complicated. But that does not make them any less universal or important.

If you are a moral relativist and don't believe in a universal moral code, then you have to be open to the fact that Genocide might be appropriate to certain cultures at different times.
Spanky is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:45 PM.