 |
|
SideshowBob: In response to your post made here:
Posted on: October 12, 2017 at 12:22:21 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
44901
Member For:
13.33 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=15106106
Where you say this: "If there is no objective morality then how is it possible for me to violate the rights of another if I determine on my own that the action taken by me is a moral act? Oh by the way, I enjoy reading your posts. Very well thought out and never any name calling."
My response:
You are conflating two separate and distinct concepts. That being: 1. Natural human rights, and 2. Morality.
As for natural human rights, these are in fact objective. They are an inherent part of every human's nature, though not always recognized and respected by each and every human in each and every human interaction. Regardless, natural rights are an undeniable inherent part of human nature.
As for morality, each unique individual possesses his or her own subjectively created moral code (i.e. determining whether a certain action is right or wrong). I would suggest that each individual's tacit or express acknowledgement of their objectively-possessed natural rights as well as the natural rights of others greatly influences each person in arriving at their own subjective moral code. Through this 100% organic process, what appears to be an objective moral code may develop (i.e. don't kill, don't steal, don't rape). However, morality also encompasses things which do not involve any infringements upon another's person or property (things like lying, committing adultery, cheating on a test, cutting in line, faking an injury, speeding, and the list could go on forever). These types of interactions have little or nothing to do with natural rights, and yet, people still develop their own moral code with respect to how to act.
Also, thanks for the compliment.
Where you say this: "If there is no objective morality then how is it possible for me to violate the rights of another if I determine on my own that the action taken by me is a moral act? Oh by the way, I enjoy reading your posts. Very well thought out and never any name calling."
My response:
You are conflating two separate and distinct concepts. That being: 1. Natural human rights, and 2. Morality.
As for natural human rights, these are in fact objective. They are an inherent part of every human's nature, though not always recognized and respected by each and every human in each and every human interaction. Regardless, natural rights are an undeniable inherent part of human nature.
As for morality, each unique individual possesses his or her own subjectively created moral code (i.e. determining whether a certain action is right or wrong). I would suggest that each individual's tacit or express acknowledgement of their objectively-possessed natural rights as well as the natural rights of others greatly influences each person in arriving at their own subjective moral code. Through this 100% organic process, what appears to be an objective moral code may develop (i.e. don't kill, don't steal, don't rape). However, morality also encompasses things which do not involve any infringements upon another's person or property (things like lying, committing adultery, cheating on a test, cutting in line, faking an injury, speeding, and the list could go on forever). These types of interactions have little or nothing to do with natural rights, and yet, people still develop their own moral code with respect to how to act.
Also, thanks for the compliment.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
SideshowBob: In response to your post made here: - ummmm MU - 10/12 12:22:21so was the US Empire justified in its' acquisition of land? - Ragnar Danneskjold MU
- 10/12 13:08:35