FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I too see where you are coming from Joe, but I refer to people who do not or choose not to recognise the existence of those rights.
Ultimately, the concept of 'human rights' hinges upon the existence of an 'absolute morality', something that few people are willing to accept the existence of.
Either there is, or there is not, a set of moral rules and laws that are true and applicable in all circumstances. If there is such a set, then you are correct, and all humans deserve to be judged by that standard, and indeed, should never be judged by any other, IE everything is in black and white. If there is not, then really, it all comes down to whose side in a particular issue the judge is on, and everything is a grey area.
I happen to agree with the absolutists. Reduced to their basic facts, all moral dilemmas end up being black and white issues, where on side is wrong, and the other is right. There are no grey areas.
If we pursue this, I heartily reccommend a new topic. We have branched away from the death penalty for certain.
Ultimately, the concept of 'human rights' hinges upon the existence of an 'absolute morality', something that few people are willing to accept the existence of.
Either there is, or there is not, a set of moral rules and laws that are true and applicable in all circumstances. If there is such a set, then you are correct, and all humans deserve to be judged by that standard, and indeed, should never be judged by any other, IE everything is in black and white. If there is not, then really, it all comes down to whose side in a particular issue the judge is on, and everything is a grey area.
I happen to agree with the absolutists. Reduced to their basic facts, all moral dilemmas end up being black and white issues, where on side is wrong, and the other is right. There are no grey areas.
If we pursue this, I heartily reccommend a new topic. We have branched away from the death penalty for certain.