"Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
On September 10 2012 03:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: xDaunt seemed to touch a nerve
But it's a pretty obvious notion. If there is no God then there is no absolute morality which means there are no inalienable rights.
Elaborate.
Are you saying that there is no morality without God? Or that religious dogmatism has the benefit of being uncompromising and absolute? And if it's the latter, why is that a good thing? Why should one religion have a monopoly on morality and define it for everyone else?
Ahhhhhh fuck it. No good can come from this conversation.
The term "unalienable rights" is itself uncompromising and absolute, is it not?
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
I didn't miss it, I actively ignored it because going into a question like that is derailing the thread beyond belief. Something like "what is morality based on," can fill its own thread. You don't have to be a genious to know what answering that here would do.
Religion in politics has some connection to this topic. Discussing where morality comes from has nothing left to do with this topic. If you feel the call, make a topic about it, but starting that discussion here is begging mod intervention.
On September 10 2012 03:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: xDaunt seemed to touch a nerve
But it's a pretty obvious notion. If there is no God then there is no absolute morality which means there are no inalienable rights.
I touched a nerve because it is so obviously true. Sure, not all democrats are anti-religious, but there is a significant liberal element that is. Just as an example, where do you guys think Obama's infamous "bitter clingers" comments came from? Hell, go ask any evangelical what they think of liberal "tolerance" towards religion. They'll definitely have a thing or two to say about it.
This line of thought was refuted thousands of years ago. You guys need to read the Euthyphro.
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
The short answer is: rights come from a proper distribution of "justice", or the complex interrelation of governmental and individual morality that works to inform how we decide what is right and wrong.
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
I didn't miss it, I actively ignored it because going into a question like that is derailing the thread beyond belief. Something like "what is morality based on," can fill its own thread. You don't have to be a genious to know what answering that here would do.
Religion in politics has some connection to this topic. Discussing where morality comes from has nothing left to do with this topic. If you feel the call, make a topic about it, but starting that discussion here is begging mod intervention.
I would like to think morality is more important than religion in politics but people would seem to rather believe in angels instead of buckling down on the morality of an issue. One day I want to see a presidential speech where they don't mention god... Hell if America is gods country, god is one mean bastard.
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
The short answer is: rights come from a proper distribution of "justice", or the complex interrelation of governmental and individual morality that works to inform how we decide what is right and wrong.
And how is this different than the answer being that rights come from "government" as I mentioned above?
I would like to think morality is more important than religion in politics but people would seem to rather believe in angels instead of buckling down on the morality of an issue.
"People?"
You can literally go into any bar and have that discussion, or if that is too low-class, find a seminar and/or discussion group about it, if not in real life, then on the internet via a forum.
If you're expecting the average Joe to start quoting Plato, you will be waiting a long time.
A topic not being in the center of attention and not being discussed isn't the same. Morality is discussed every day by millions of people in millions of places.
One day I want to see a presidential speech where they don't mention god... Hell if America is gods country, god is one mean bastard.
Well, if any country can be argued to be "god's country," America has a pretty decent throw for it. Better than Saudi-Arabia, or Somalia, that's for sure.
Though I've always found the notion of the Abrahamic god picking teams to be almost sillier than the concept itself.
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
The short answer is: rights come from a proper distribution of "justice", or the complex interrelation of governmental and individual morality that works to inform how we decide what is right and wrong.
And how is this different than the answer being that rights come from "government" as I mentioned above?
Because both government and the people ruled under said government play an important role in determining what is "justice", so much so that attempting to show which component plays a more important role ends up being a futile effort. If we had to start out on that path, I'd characterize government as "provision" and the populace as "legitimator".
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
The short answer is: rights come from a proper distribution of "justice", or the complex interrelation of governmental and individual morality that works to inform how we decide what is right and wrong.
And how is this different than the answer being that rights come from "government" as I mentioned above?
Because both government and the people ruled under said government play an important role in determining what is "justice", so much so that attempting to show which component plays a more important role ends up being a futile effort. If we had to start out on that path, I'd characterize government as "provision" and the populace as "legitimator".
Correct. And as I pointed out, when the rights do not come from a higher power and are instead defined by the government or by people, then they are no longer inalienable because they are subject to change.
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
The short answer is: rights come from a proper distribution of "justice", or the complex interrelation of governmental and individual morality that works to inform how we decide what is right and wrong.
And how is this different than the answer being that rights come from "government" as I mentioned above?
Because both government and the people ruled under said government play an important role in determining what is "justice", so much so that attempting to show which component plays a more important role ends up being a futile effort. If we had to start out on that path, I'd characterize government as "provision" and the populace as "legitimator".
Correct. And as I pointed out, when the rights do not come from a higher power and are instead defined by the government or by people, then they are no longer inalienable because they are subject to change.
They are subject to change depending on who your "higher power" is.
On September 10 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "Secular morality applies to all people, regardless of whether they believe in it or not. Religious morality holds no value if you don't believe in it, because it is grounded on divine mandate" You missed an important question there, and that is, what is secular morality grounded on? You are making the same exact mistake as the religious make, and that is believing that your preferred morality is objective.
1) People do think that secular morality is derived from something higher. They just call it things like "rationality." 2) Secular morality does NOT apply to all people. Subjective morality is subjective. The popularity of a morality says nothing of it's legitimacy or value.
The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
The short answer is: rights come from a proper distribution of "justice", or the complex interrelation of governmental and individual morality that works to inform how we decide what is right and wrong.
And how is this different than the answer being that rights come from "government" as I mentioned above?
Because both government and the people ruled under said government play an important role in determining what is "justice", so much so that attempting to show which component plays a more important role ends up being a futile effort. If we had to start out on that path, I'd characterize government as "provision" and the populace as "legitimator".
Correct. And as I pointed out, when the rights do not come from a higher power and are instead defined by the government or by people, then they are no longer inalienable because they are subject to change.
I agree with you to a degree, but this is where language begins to run into problems, in that even though the malleable nature of a progressive society necessitates a fluid understanding of rights, the framework itself becomes a sort of inalienable requisite that both constituent parties must recognize if "justice" is to be maintained.
You can tell Romney is trying very hard to get back to his moderate centrist roots yet the neo-conservatism that has taken over the GOP just won't let him.
Rights are social constructs. As such, they are and always will be potentially subject to change. What we consider basic human rights are only what they are because we have decided so, and that some rights may forever remain human rights (and are considered by some "inalienable" because of their fundamental nature) doesn't change the fact that they are social constructs.
On September 10 2012 05:04 xDaunt wrote: The real issue is why are inalienable rights inalienable if no higher power exists? It's kinda hard logically for the rights to come from nowhere. Typically the answer to this is that the rights come from government, which makes them not so inalienable after all.
I would say theat they are inalienable through enlightenment. Natural and human rights exist because of our very human nature, not a mandate from above (imo). They are inalienable and different than legal rights which are a man-made construct, and not naturally inherent.
Edit: kwizach makes a good point though, even the Enlightment was a social construct I suppose. If reason, science, and society change what defines us as human, I suppose natural and human rights aren't really inalienable after all. Liberty, as a natural right seems to be not-so inalienable for example.
Just remembered this when we talk about inalienable rights and god. What about one of the founding fathers, seems like the inalienable rights didn't really apply back then.
I have never understood the "religion is the base of our morals view." I'm sorry but religion is the cause of a great deal of pain for a lot of people, I mean would we have as much bigotry towards gays if it wasn't for religion? What about oppression of women? I don't understand why religion says we should be all accepting, and then turn around and condemn people for who they are.
There should be a separation of church and state... because that's what makes sense. Forcing your views on other people is infringing on their rights, not the other way around.
Laws like "you should not kill" and you "should not steal" can stick around, not cause the bible says so, but because we agree as a society that you know, killing each other is bad, and we don't want our stuff stolen. Same for other "rights" that people believe are given to us by a creator.
I'm not sure what is exactly going on in this pic, but I find it funny.
"Vice President Joe Biden talks to customers during a stop at Cruisers Diner, Sept. 9, in Seaman, Ohio." --http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/09/13763392-biden-cozies-up-to-voters-in-ohio?lite
EPT
![[image loading]](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-120909-biden-cannon.photoblog900.jpg)
