Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that much of morality stems from a basic respect for other people -- for their autonomy, and dignity, and worth. The Golden Rule, if you will. The hard questions come when different moral claims collide. For example, is it OK to compel parents to innoculate their kids against certain diseases? You pit the parents' preferences, and role as parents, against the potential harm to other people from the spread of disease. There's no obvious answer -- it depends on things like the risks posed by the innoculation, the threat of disease, and the number of people who want to skip the innoculation.

Much religious doctrine can be understood as trying to strike the same sort of balance on similar questions. But I suspect few religions say anything about innoculation, since it's too new a problem.

One point is that religions seem to move beyond their own rules. We don't kill children that disobey their parents like is commanded in the old Testament. Even Jesus in Mathew stated that one should follow all the laws (keep Kosher etc). Yet todays Christians don't. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament seem to accept slavery. I believe the Koran does not critisize slavery. Yet most Muslems, Jews and Christians today all believe slavery is wrong. It seems that most Religions adopt the same morality even if their "rule book" does not support it. I just don't see this convergence on the same moral principles comes about because of rational dialogue. It seems that we all have the same moral instincts that when we discuss the issues these instincts just seem to come out in the form of common sense.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
When I am telling a person of another culture how to conduct their life, I would like to have a strong backing for doing so. When they ask me, "how can you enforce these international human rights, when I tell I don't believe in any such nonsense." If my reply is, just because, that does not seem very solid.

Whereas, because I say God told me to is more solid? When you are talking about things like suttee and clitorectomy (clitordectomy?), all that does it make it your God against their God. It's a pathetic change in terminology. You're screwed either way. It gets you nowhere. It's just as futile.

Well, you might feel more rejected, or more justified in going nuclear than if it were just your own personal opinion -- they are going against God, therefore you are on the side of Right and Good. Then, though, I think it just is more likely to escalate, and I guess it's winner takes all or something.

Or, you stew about it, but feel smug self-satisfaction in being absolutely right, rather than just true to your own personal convictions.

And I thought I had issues.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that much of morality stems from a basic respect for other people -- for their autonomy, and dignity, and worth. The Golden Rule, if you will. The hard questions come when different moral claims collide. For example, is it OK to compel parents to innoculate their kids against certain diseases? You pit the parents' preferences, and role as parents, against the potential harm to other people from the spread of disease. There's no obvious answer -- it depends on things like the risks posed by the innoculation, the threat of disease, and the number of people who want to skip the innoculation.

Much religious doctrine can be understood as trying to strike the same sort of balance on similar questions. But I suspect few religions say anything about innoculation, since it's too new a problem.

I don't have a problem with it. I see not taking care of your child medically as child abuse. I think the kid should be innoculated with out their parents permission. That is what my instincts tell me.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Whereas, because I say God told me to is more solid? When you are talking about things like suttee and clitorectomy (clitordectomy?), all that does it make it your God against their God. It's a pathetic change in terminology. You're screwed either way. It gets you nowhere. It's just as futile.

That is definitely one way of looking at it. You see the problem. I want the U.S. to support human rights around the world but how do you justify such activity? I don't know why, but I find the idea of doing nothing to stop genocide in other countrys as morally repugnant. I just know something should be done about it. But why? What rational excuse do you use? Except that "I just know it is wrong".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
One point is that religions seem to move beyond their own rules. We don't kill children that disobey their parents like is commanded in the old Testament. Even Jesus in Mathew stated that one should follow all the laws (keep Kosher etc). Yet todays Christians don't. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament seem to accept slavery. I believe the Koran does not critisize slavery. Yet most Muslems, Jews and Christians today all believe slavery is wrong. It seems that most Religions adopt the same morality even if their "rule book" does not support it. I just don't see this convergence on the same moral principles comes about because of rational dialogue. It seems that we all have the same moral instincts that when we discuss the issues these instincts just seem to come out in the form of common sense.

How can you tell that it's instinct instead of the result of deliberation and dialogue over time?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't have a problem with it. I see not taking care of your child medically as child abuse. I think the kid should be innoculated with out their parents permission. That is what my instincts tell me.

What about the risk to the kid? Suppose that the innoculation causes death in 1 in 100,000 kids, but that if no one is innoculated, 1 in 10,000 kids will die over time.

You can keep messing with the numbers; ultimately, there are hard questions that reasonable people will answer differently.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What about the risk to the kid? Suppose that the innoculation causes death in 1 in 100,000 kids, but that if no one is innoculated, 1 in 10,000 kids will die over time.

You can keep messing with the numbers; ultimately, there are hard questions that reasonable people will answer differently.

Reasonable people may answer them differently, but thankfully Spanky will have the correct answers. Spanky is the knower of the universal moral code.

If I had known all along that this boiled down to Spanky wanting to sleep better after telling other countries what constitutes a human rights violation, I would have pointed him to Amnesty International's website in the first place. No, sorry, they can't be right. They're saying that the USA has committed human rights violations. Shit. Let me get my universal moral code and investigate. Their human rights compass must be flawed somewhere.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is definitely one way of looking at it. You see the problem. I want the U.S. to support human rights around the world but how do you justify such activity? I don't know why, but I find the idea of doing nothing to stop genocide in other countrys as morally repugnant. I just know something should be done about it. But why? What rational excuse do you use? Except that "I just know it is wrong".

Do you see no way of explaining what is wrong about genocide?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Reasonable people may answer them differently, but thankfully Spanky will have the correct answers. Spanky is the knower of the universal moral code.

If I had known all along that this boiled down to Spanky wanting to sleep better after telling other countries what constitutes a human rights violation, I would have pointed him to Amnesty International's website in the first place. No, sorry, they can't be right. They're saying that the USA has committed human rights violations. Shit. Let me get my universal moral code and investigate. Their human rights compass must be flawed somewhere.

That brick imprint on your forehead looks kinda funny.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That brick imprint on your forehead looks kinda funny.

Nah. I'm not trying to speak rationally with anyone. What fun is that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you see no way of explaining what is wrong about genocide?

if this is about north Africa- that's it. Your anti-islam rant has gone too far. I'm telling RT either you're banned or I'm of to Tucker Max.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you see no way of explaining what is wrong about genocide?

Killing children is bad.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Reasonable people may answer them differently, but thankfully Spanky will have the correct answers. Spanky is the knower of the universal moral code.

When did I say that. I said one exists but I never said I know what the whole code says. Are you just one of those people that look for stuff to get upset about.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive No, sorry, they can't be right. They're saying that the USA has committed human rights violations. Shit. Let me get my universal moral code and investigate. Their human rights compass must be flawed somewhere.

Did I ever say that Amnesty International was wrong when it said that the US committed human rights violations? Where the hell did that come from. When did I ever mention Amnesty International or critisize what they do. You are as bad as that Tax Wonk idiot.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive If I had known all along that this boiled down to Spanky wanting to sleep better after telling other countries what constitutes a human rights violation, I would have pointed him to Amnesty International's website in the first place.

Amnesty International runs into the same problem. They do a great job of supporting human rights around the world. But in the end, who are they to say what are and what are not human rights? when they tell the Burmese that it is wrong to keep political prisoners - what do they tell the Burmese (or Myanmar) government when they assert why they understand human rights better than they do? I support the idea of Amnesty International's efforts but I can't give a rational reason why I do. My instincts just tell me they are doing the right thing.

Amnesty International is a perfect illustration of the problem because they go all around the world telling governments what they should and shouldn't do. What makes them the holders of the wisdom and all these other governments wrong?

BTW: when I lived in Asia I did a lot of probono work for Amnesty International. Have you ever written letters for, donated money to or helped Amnesty International in any way?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Killing children is bad.

mmmmmmm bad

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did I ever say that Amnesty International was wrong when it said that the US committed human rights violations? Where the hell did that come from. When did I ever mention Amnesty International or critisize what they do. You are as bad as that Tax Wonk idiot.

fwiw Taxwonk has bigger tits.