Is belief in god a virtue?

[D'rok]

Not according the the stipend of the United Natiuons and the USA Constitution. the rights are inelienable, innately deserved by virtue of our common humanity. Such rights were always present though not recognized. Once recognized, however during the European Age of Enlightment, they have been the cornerstone for most modern democracies.

A comparison of the mutually exclusive "discoveries" of natural rights by Enlightenment rationalists is clear evidence that rights are socially constructed. Compare Hobbes to Locke to Rousseau for example. Each had different political goals; each constructed different sets of "natural" rights.

Nothing has changed. The UDHR includes the right to vacations with pay. Sound a little suspiciously purposive to you?

I agree that morality varies from society to society, cultural relativism they call it. However, there are definite universal rights as outlined by the United States Constitution and by the United Nations which are universally recognoized as legitimate. It's these rights which are used to determine when nations or people are behavinbg in a manner deservinbg negative sanctioning via embargoes, imprisonment, of military intervention.. Such rights are also used to determine when crimes against hjumanity have been committed during. You know, such as the crimes committed under Nazi Germany. If indeed we insist on adhering to the sophist idea that there is nor right or wrong, then these heinous atrocities of genocide against defensless people could not be judged either right nor wrong. Or if a woman is gang raped, then we would be forced to say that it is morally neutral. Or if someone breaks into your house and steals all your belongings, well, that too would have to be considered morally neutraL. In short, all attempts to deter crime could be argued away as unjustified.


Btw
Courses in ethics recognize the existence of human rights.

Human rights do not exist. Many (and I hazard a guess at most) ethics courses recognize this. The fact that they have no higher grounding than the societies and cultures in which they arise does not, however, mean that they are unimportant.

Platonizing rights devalues and trivializes them. Humanizing rights elevates them.

 

[Radrook]

A comparison of the mutually exclusive "discoveries" of natural rights by Enlightenment rationalists is clear evidence that rights are socially constructed. Compare Hobbes to Locke to Rousseau for example. Each had different political goals; each constructed different sets of "natural" rights.

Nothing has changed. The UDHR includes the right to vacations with pay. Sound a little suspiciously purposive to you?





Human rights do not exist. Many (and I hazard a guess at most) ethics courses recognize this. The fact that they have no higher grounding than the societies and cultures in which they arise does not, however, mean that they are unimportant.

Platonizing rights devalues and trivializes them. Humanizing rights elevates them.

I am not saying that people imediately agreed on what human rights are. Obviouisly the period of enlightened despots which ran concurrently with the formulation process shows that there was initial disagreement. But by the time of the formulation of the USA Constitution the idea was clear-cut as it remains today.

 

[D'rok]

I am not saying that people imediately agreed on what human rights are. Obviouisly the period of enlightened despots which ran concurrently with the formulation process shows that there was initial disagreement. But by the time of the formulation of the USA Constitution the idea was clear-cut as it remains today.

There is still significant disagreement on what rights are. There always will be. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA constitution has the "true" set of rights, while all the other Charters and Bills of Rights (including the UDHR) in other nations that differ from it are simply wrong? That's totally specious.

 

[Sun Countess]

But by the time of the formulation of the USA Constitution the idea was clear-cut as it remains today.

Which is why there was no need for the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, Child Labor Laws or the Civil Rights Movement. Because women and black people all had the same rights and privileges under the US Constitution that white men had right from the get-go.

Are you really saying that there was full consensus on human rights at the time when certain people were still considered the property of other people?

 

[qayak]

Is belief in god a virtue?

Only to the extent that any other delusional belief is a virtue.

 

[yomero]

As to Christianity, it doesn't teach its followers to enslave or kill others. If I am wrong--please show me where it teaches that.

Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
1 Timothy 6:1 "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full repect so that the name of God and His teachings will not be shamed".
And in the words of Jesus himself: Luke 12:47-48 "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But those who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished lightly".

As for killing others, let's just take the first of the gospels: Mathew . Read chapters 10:14-15, 10:21, 10: 34-36, 15:4-7 and 24:37.

I"m not sure that moral relativism can be invoked to justify Christ's and early Christian tolerance of slavery. I think there were thinkers in the centuries around Christ's life who denounced slavery as immoral. Aristotle favored slavery as the natural state of some humans. When he is discussing this, he mentions an anti-slavery position in other philosophers. In 1928, Joseph McCabe wrote "The Story of Religious Controversy" where he lists Dion Chrysostom, Plutarch, Epicurus, Hegesias, Florentinus, Ulpian, Seneca and Juvenal as being against slavery. Dion Chrysostom, a Greek Stoic, gave a lecture in the Forum of Rome in 100 A.D. that lasted 2 days with the intent of attacking slavery. I have not read those ancient Greeks and Romans, so I have no quotes from them. But there certainly is no express denouncement of servitude by the early church

 

[Radrook]

Which is why there was no need for the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, Child Labor Laws or the Civil Rights Movement. Because women and black people all had the same rights and privileges under the US Constitution that white men had right from the get-go.

Are you really saying that there was full consensus on human rights at the time when certain people were still considered the property of other people?

People found and will always find ways to justify human rights violations when deemed convenient. That doesn't prove that the concept isn't or wasn't clearly stated.

 

[Radrook]

Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
1 Timothy 6:1 "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full repect so that the name of God and His teachings will not be shamed".
And in the words of Jesus himself: Luke 12:47-48 "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But those who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished lightly".

As for killing others, let's just take the first of the gospels: Mathew . Read chapters 10:14-15, 10:21, 10: 34-36, 15:4-7 and 24:37.

I"m not sure that moral relativism can be invoked to justify Christ's and early Christian tolerance of slavery. I think there were thinkers in the centuries around Christ's life who denounced slavery as immoral. Aristotle favored slavery as the natural state of some humans. When he is discussing this, he mentions an anti-slavery position in other philosophers. In 1928, Joseph McCabe wrote "The Story of Religious Controversy" where he lists Dion Chrysostom, Plutarch, Epicurus, Hegesias, Florentinus, Ulpian, Seneca and Juvenal as being against slavery. Dion Chrysostom, a Greek Stoic, gave a lecture in the Forum of Rome in 100 A.D. that lasted 2 days with the intent of attacking slavery. I have not read those ancient Greeks and Romans, so I have no quotes from them. But there certainly is no express denouncement of servitude by the early church

The scriptures you offered are not customarily and uasually understood to mean a justification for slavery nor for wanton acts of violence. Of course one can choose to ubderstand them that way. But then one would be hard pressed to reconcile one's personal interpretion with other scriptures.
But such a discussion leads nowhere since we are operating from different criteria. Also, I was not seeking a debate on scriptural matters. I fully recognize your right to reject all religion as drivel. Neither am I under the delusion of messianically striving to dissuade you from your strong convictions. In fact, I consider it a waste of time since such arguments leave the contestants firmly entrenched and nothing is really accomplished.

 

[Tumblehome]

Not according the the stipend of the United Natiuons and the USA Constitution. the rights are inelienable, innately deserved by virtue of our common humanity. Such rights were always present though not recognized. Once recognized, however during the European Age of Enlightment, they have been the cornerstone for most modern democracies.

I agree that morality varies from society to society, cultural relativism they call it. However, there are definite universal rights as outlined by the United States Constitution and by the United Nations which are universally recognoized as legitimate.

The United Nations and the U.S. constitution are cultural constructs themselves of affluent societies, as is any society that agrees with them, so I don't see how you can rationalize their declarations as innate. If--or more probably, when--Western civilization goes down the tubes, everything it stood for will break down, including human rights.

Treating human rights as innate ultimately leads to a moral dilemma. If my family is starving and I encounter a man who won't give me food, what do I do? Kill the man in cold blood to preserve my family's right to life, or respect his right to life and let my family starve to death?

 

[Complexity]

Treating human rights as innate ultimately leads to a moral dilemma. If my family is starving and I encounter a man who won't give me food, what do I do? Kill the man in cold blood to preserve my family's right to life, or respect his right to life and let my family starve to death?

This is a moral dilemma for you? It is sad, I'll grant you, but there is no question about the right thing to do.

(Though I suspect there will be disagreement about what I think is the right thing to do. There shouldn't be.)

 

[yomero]

But such a discussion leads nowhere since we are operating from different criteria. Also, I was not seeking a debate on scriptural matters. I fully recognize your right to reject all religion as drivel. Neither am I under the delusion of messianically striving to dissuade you from your strong convictions. In fact, I consider it a waste of time since such arguments leave the contestants firmly entrenched and nothing is really accomplished.

Perhaps this discussion could lead somewhere: to a greater understanding of the other person's rationality in reaching his conclussions, even though one does not find them decisive. It is not always that we stay firmly entrenched in our opinions. To illustrate: After I posted about classical Greek and Roman thinkers oposed to slavery, I searched for more information and it changed my opinion. I couldn't find the original texts, only critical analyses of their works. It appears that when those philosophers had qualms about the mistreatment of slaves, they were interested in the masters and not the victims. Sexually abusing a female slave was seen as wrong because by it the slave-owner lost control and fell to his baser instincts. The Stoics debated slavery (and they were more interested in intellectual rather than physical freedom) as a philosophical exercise. They were not interested in abolishing the institution.

With enough evidence a rational person does change his opinion, at least on those aspects where the evidence is presented. His whole outlook, I grant you, is much harder to change.

 

[Tumblehome]

This is a moral dilemma for you? It is sad, I'll grant you, but there is no question about the right thing to do.

(Though I suspect there will be disagreement about what I think is the right thing to do. There shouldn't be.)

I meant it's a moral dilemma if you think the right to life is innate, which I don't, otherwise our Bill of Rights would come from the universe, and not have to be made from whole cloth by our governments.

Even the "right thing to do" is subjective for every individual and situation.

 

[Complexity]

I meant it's a moral dilemma if you think the right to life is innate, which I don't, otherwise our Bill of Rights would come from the universe, and not have to be made from whole cloth by our governments.

Even the "right thing to do" is subjective for every individual and situation.

There are no rights except those that we claim and hold.

I have claimed and hold several rights. I decide what is moral and ethical behavior and try to live according to these principles. I hold others to my standards.

I do not think that killing someone in order to steal his food for your family is ever defensible.

 

[Tumblehome]

Understood, but you weren't born with those rights, is what I'm saying. The moral code you've arrived at is the result of living in an affluent Western culture that makes it its business to recognize and uphold individual rights, and because it can afford to. If there comes a time when there's anarchy in the streets and food is scarce, you might have a hard time sticking to your principles.

And the universe certainly doesn't recognize your moral code, nor any Bill of Rights. It doesn't care one bit if you're an upstanding citizen or a serial killer. You're just as susceptible to dying in a natural disaster as Jeffrey Dahmer was.

 

[qayak]

I do not think that killing someone in order to steal his food for your family is ever defensible.

Well, after my family finishes eating, we can all discuss it but I don't think you will be able to convince us and you won't be getting any support from the dead guy.

If you and your family don't mind dying, there is no moral dilemma.

 

[Radrook]

There is still significant disagreement on what rights are. There always will be. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA constitution has the "true" set of rights, while all the other Charters and Bills of Rights (including the UDHR) in other nations that differ from it are simply wrong? That's totally specious.

That depends on what these other documents say. If they don't properly protect the citizens from what the United Nations considers to be human rights violations-then they would be inferior in certain areas.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris. The Declaration has been translated into at least 375 languages and dialects, making it the most widely translated document in the world[1]. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Belief in God is not a virtue... but then again, "virtue" is a human concept. So it's perfectly reasonable that a human or group of humans will consider that a virtue, and have it grant them some "position" in society (Lets take the Pope as a very good example of this)

When we deal with made up concepts, anything is possible. That's why it's perfectly possible for God to "exist" for millions of perfectly sane humans.

 

[D'rok]

That depends on what these other documents say. If they don't properly protect the citizens from what the United Nations considers to be human rights violations-then they would be inferior in certain areas.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR

Now the UDHR is the measure? You said it was the USA Constitution just a few posts ago. If the UDHR is your gold standard, then the US Bill of Rights doesn't measure up. Have you even read the Articles of the UDHR? You would probably have civil war in your country (assuming you are American) if you tried to implement it domestically.

At any rate, the differences just further illustrate the realtivity of rights.