RE: SideshowBob: In response to your post made here:
Posted on: October 12, 2017 at 13:33:21 CT
SideshowBob MU
Posts:
584
Member For:
26.31 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Thanks for your response. While I can see the difference by definition in the two concepts, it appears to me that the two are inextricably linked. If natural human rights set the limits by which one individual may act against another does that not establish a de facto moral or ethical system/relationship among them? That is, if natural human rights are objective, then transgressions against them must also be objective. What I mean by that is, were I to commit an unprovoked act of aggression against you have I not committed an immoral act? I believe the answer would have to be yes. And if that act has always been universally immoral and will always be universally immoral, isn't that the very essence of objectivity? Thanks in advance for your answer.