Right versus Priviledge

[The Rabbi]

Thank you, Mugster. Exactly right.

[Guest canynracer]

Well put Mugster!

[Guest jfountain2]

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

I believe someone is confusing the Declaration of Independence, with the Bill of Rights. The DOI does not grant rights it acknowledges that our founding fathers believed that all men were born with rights given to them by the creator of us all.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment does not grant us any rights. In my opinion, it instructs the government not to create laws that interfere with our right to keep and bear arms so that we may defend ourselves.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Therefore I believe that all Americans have the basic natural right to use whatever tools are available to them to stop these very real threats to their life. But the courts do not agree and would rule me to be criminal if I did so without buying their permission. Therefore that may well be a right, but it is not a recognized right.

This was what I was getting at. The courts can decide as they wish, but they can't make a basic human right anything other than it is--a right. All they can do is restrict or deny it. That doesn't make it any less of what it is.

Submission?? I have been arrested once in <st1:state>Illinois</st1:state> for my beliefs; charged with no crime other than having a handgun in my car. Are you suggesting that you are somehow more of a man or a patriot than I because I won’t continue with what I believe is right, knowing that a second offense would result in jail time?

My comment wasn't directed at you.

The only rights that we or any entity (like the state) have are the ones you can impose. The state has the firepower...they will impose the legal code upon you, and you break laws at your own peril.

Religion is no different. The nut cases down at waco had a belief system and some guns to back it up...in opposition of the legal code (granted, somewhat debatable). The .gov decided to impose its will and the result was a restriction of whatever rights they thought they had.

The US has the right to exist as long as it has more guns and better troops and so far, we remain on top. At one time the Nazi party decided to impose its will on the world. Their right to exist as a political party was terminated because they were weak. If they were stronger, it might have been a different tune.

The idea that you have a right to carry a gun or drive a car is absurd. You are granted these rights by society. You can always armor up your car and defiantly try to impose whatever you think your rights are on the state. I'll be watching it on the TV drinking a beer when they blast you with a main gun round out of a tank.

So might is what makes a certain moral concept or societal construct a right to be guaranteed or denied? By your logic, you may rape a woman, and she has no recourse against you because you were able to overpower her and take what you wanted. By your ability to physically exert your will over her person, she lost her right to live her life without being violated by you.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[Guest Mugster]

This was what I was getting at. The courts can decide as they wish, but they can't make a basic human anything other than it is--a right. All they can do is restrict or deny it. That doesn't make it any less of what it is.

My comment wasn't directed at you.

So might is what makes a certain moral concept or societal construct a right to be guaranteed or denied? By your logic, you may rape a woman, and she has no recourse against you because you were able to overpower her and take what you wanted. By your ability to physically exert your will over her person, she lost her right to live her life without being violated by you.

By my logic, rape is illegal and backed up by state firepower, so thats a bad example. However you are on the right track. Might enforces morality. Without might, you might have a morality...but the other guy is probably going to impose his on you.

"Rights" are a bad term. Any privileges you have in our society are granted by our society's morality.

Morality (def): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

I like 2a, to quote: "a doctrine or system of moral conduct"

A doctrine has to be invented by some body of people or a some thing, ours has roots in western civilization, going back to the greeks/romans more or less.

In certain places in the world (even today) it is considered moral to perform "female circumcision." Back during the crusades, it was considered moral to torch churches with non-believers in them. At one point, slavery in this country was considered moral. All of these things will buy you jail time now, if not outright execution, because our moral doctrine is codified into law and enfored with firepower.

The legal system typically backs the morality of the majority. When the majority of people believe opposite of codefied laws, there is usually turmoil and change. Cival war, protest, etc.

Get the picture?

Edited June 2, 2008 by Mugster

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

By my logic, rape is illegal and backed up by state firepower, so thats a bad example. However you are on the right track. Might enforces morality. Without might, you might have a morality...but the other guy is probably going to impose his on you.

"Rights" are a bad term. Any privileges you have in our society are granted by our society's morality.

Morality (def): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

I like 2a, to quote: "a doctrine or system of moral conduct"

A doctrine has to be invented by some body of people or a some thing, ours has roots in western civilization, going back to the greeks/romans more or less.

In certain places in the world (even today) it is considered moral to perform "female circumcision." Back during the crusades, it was considered moral to torch churches with non-believers in them. At one point, slavery in this country was considered moral. All of these things will buy you jail time now, if not outright execution, because our moral doctrine is codified into law and enfored with firepower.

The legal system typically backs the morality of the majority. When the majority of people believe opposite of codefied laws, there is usually turmoil and change. Cival war, protest, etc.

Get the picture?

So, might equals right?

From where comes morality, then? Does morality simply spring from the whim of the government?

To me, it is immoral for anyone or any government to deny the natural right to self-defense. It's inherent in all the other animals. It occurs spontaneously, and it is equitable and good. It is perfectly natural. The fact that DC denies handguns for personal defense does not at all negate the fact that it is a fundamental RIGHT that we may defend ourselves against transgression. DC simply chooses to deny the use of that right where firearms are involved. Their decision to do so does not justify itself by their power to enforce the law.

[Guest Mugster]

So, might equals right?

From where comes morality, then? Does morality simply spring from the whim of the government?

To me, it is immoral for anyone or any government to deny the natural right to self-defense. It's inherent in all the other animals. It occurs spontaneously, and it is equitable and good. It is perfectly natural. The fact that DC denies handguns for personal defense does not at all negate the fact that it is a fundamental RIGHT that we may defend ourselves against transgression. DC simply chooses to deny the use of that right where firearms are involved. Their decision to do so does not justify itself by their power to enforce the law.

Morality generally springs from majority consensus, one way or the other. Codefied law tends to follow a step or 2 behind. Morality is not static, it tends to change over time as people and societies change.

You may well have a moral disagreement with the .gov in DC. The fact is, their decision to enforce the law DOES justify that morality. When they can no longer enforce the law or the people end the law through societal change...that is when the right to use a handgun comes back into the hands of the people.

Until then the people in DC have no "right" to own a handgun. As codefied by DC law which is a representation of the morality of the people that live there.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Morality generally springs from majority consensus, one way or the other. Codefied law tends to follow a step or 2 behind. Morality is not static, it tends to change over time as people and societies change.

You may well have a moral disagreement with the .gov in DC. The fact is, their decision to enforce the law DOES justify that morality. When they can no longer enforce the law or the people end the law through societal change...that is when the right to use a handgun comes back into the hands of the people.

Until then the people in DC have no "right" to own a handgun. As codefied by DC law which is a representation of the morality of the people that live there.

The argument is still "they have the power to do this, so that makes it right." I disagree.

Slavery. Internment and extermination in concentration camps. Footbinding. The aforementioned female circumcision. Lack of women's suffrage. All of these things were (and are) wrong. They always were. Before and after their relative legality. The code no more makes something morally proper than does your submission to the code. Never was there a time that a slave did not have the right to be free--only a time when he or she did not have the opportunity to be free.

Certain moral concepts are inarguable. There is no flux.

I think the primary difference between myself and some of you is that I long ago rejected the notion that the law is just, or that I was required to allow it to define my morality. I might choose to operate within its limits, but that's radically different than considering it to be just or acceptable.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

The argument is still "they have the power to do this, so that makes it right." I disagree.

.

So how, if not by power, do we change this and make it right? The problem is semantic. There are several meanings of the word "right." One is the starboard side. Another is being correct. A third is having social and/or legal permission. The fuzziness occurs between the second and third definitions. We now have a right to an abortion. Is this right? But it is a right.

Morals are not rights. Much is said about moral relativism. Though I agree, in principle, that moral relativism has eroded the character of our country, I must admit that morality, in the social, not religious sense, is relative.

Slavery was common in the time of the Old Testament, and the prophets wrote of proper ways to treat slaves. Gradually, most of the world came to the just conclusion that slavery is wrong, immoral, and might imposed this idea to many. Not so very long ago, women being in the workplace was considered wrong and immoral. It was considered immoral for women to smoke cigarettes. An educated, socially moral, American man from 1890 would think the sight of a woman smoking a cigarette outside of the resturaunt where she worked as a waitress, wearing a skirt that showed her bare ankles, was extremely immoral. Would that man from the 1890's be wrong? Was his oppression of women immoral? What changed? How? Why?

Currently, there are countries and cultures who feel we are immoral. The fact that we let women show their faces in public and that we drink alcohol proves that we are a corrupt, immoral culture. There are some from these cultures who would impose their morality on us by force. We cannot empirically prove that they are wrong. But we can, by might, maintain our rights.

Edited June 2, 2008 by DrBoomBoom

[The Rabbi]

So, might equals right?

From where comes morality, then? Does morality simply spring from the whim of the government?

To me, it is immoral for anyone or any government to deny the natural right to self-defense. It's inherent in all the other animals. It occurs spontaneously, and it is equitable and good. It is perfectly natural. The fact that DC denies handguns for personal defense does not at all negate the fact that it is a fundamental RIGHT that we may defend ourselves against transgression. DC simply chooses to deny the use of that right where firearms are involved. Their decision to do so does not justify itself by their power to enforce the law.

Wow, your argumentation has actually gotten worse.

So now you claim that "natural rights" come from observing animals? In that case rape, theft and murder would all be OK, since animals do that all the time.

And you start off "to me". So does that mean to other people it is moral? Is morality simply every man his own opinion?

And what does morality have to do with rights? What is a "fundamental right" as opposed to a plain right?

Do you have a clue as to what you are posting? I get the feeling you are simply regurgitating stuff you've read and heard, without trying to synthesize any of it or make sense out of it.

It sure isnt making any sense to me.

[Mark@Sea]

Mugster, you have, I'm sure, a passing awareness of the extremely high violent crime/murder rate in DC. I'd say they already "can't enforce the law". Might does not make right. The law is an ass. Anyone who thinks that law and order correspond to right and wrong are either very young or dumb as a box of shrimp. Anyone who thinks the justice system actually dispenses justice - well, they're just too dumb to breed. That they do is unfortunate. The good people of DC have the same right of effective self defense that we enjoy - it is simply being denied them. Any comparison to Europe is, on its' face, witless. This country, we Americans, we are the anti-europe, and have been since the beginning. Drboomboom, I used almost your exact comparisons in an open carry thread, before I read this one. Wierd!

[Guest Mugster]

The argument is still "they have the power to do this, so that makes it right." I disagree.

Slavery. Internment and extermination in concentration camps. Footbinding. The aforementioned female circumcision. Lack of women's suffrage. All of these things were (and are) wrong. They always were. Before and after their relative legality. The code no more makes something morally proper than does your submission to the code. Never was there a time that a slave did not have the right to be free--only a time when he or she did not have the opportunity to be free.

Certain moral concepts are inarguable. There is no flux.

I think the primary difference between myself and some of you is that I long ago rejected the notion that the law is just, or that I was required to allow it to define my morality. I might choose to operate within its limits, but that's radically different than considering it to be just or acceptable.

This last bit, everyone does it to a certain extent.

But moral concepts are definitely arguable. You learned yours through a learning process as you grew up. We are having a little argument with a few guys over in Iraq right now...trying to impose our morality on them just like we did with the japanese in 1945. Nothing says "we're right" like an atom bomb. If they refuse our money and won't behave the way we see fit, we send in the marines and literally blow the hell out of everything.

Get yourself a copy of this:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Morality-Military-Profession-Second/dp/0813303605

This is my last post on the thread.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

Drboomboom, I used almost your exact comparisons in an open carry thread, before I read this one. Wierd!

Mark, after reading your open carry thread I pm'd you. Great minds think alike.

[The Rabbi]

Mugster, you have, I'm sure, a passing awareness of the extremely high violent crime/murder rate in DC. I'd say they already "can't enforce the law". Might does not make right. The law is an ass. Anyone who thinks that law and order correspond to right and wrong are either very young or dumb as a box of shrimp. Anyone who thinks the justice system actually dispenses justice - well, they're just too dumb to breed. That they do is unfortunate. The good people of DC have the same right of effective self defense that we enjoy - it is simply being denied them. Any comparison to Europe is, on its' face, witless. This country, we Americans, we are the anti-europe, and have been since the beginning. Drboomboom, I used almost your exact comparisons in an open carry thread, before I read this one. Wierd!

Wow, name calling and mere assertion. What a great substitute for a reasoned argument.

So do Europeans have a natural right of self defense or not? How do you know?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

So how, if not by power, do we change this and make it right? The problem is semantic. There are several meanings of the word "right." One is the starboard side. Another is being correct. A third is having social and/or legal permission. The fuzziness occurs between the second and third definitions. We now have a right to an abortion. Is this right? But it is a right.

Might does not always equal right. Sometimes, though, as in the case of the Allies, the mightier, more effective force, enforces the "right". As in the case of Poland falling to the blitzkrieg, sometimes the powers of evil or "not right" prevail.

There's another definition of "right". The one of which I've been posting. Those qualities and opportunities with which every person is naturally and justifiable endowed. "Human rights". No law or society grants the right to live a life free of enforced servitude. The law merely recognizes that right, or it doesn't. Writing law that legalizes slavery doesn't make slavery morally correct.

Morals are not rights. Much is said about moral relativism. Though I agree, in principle, that moral relativism has eroded the character of our country, I must admit that morality, in the social, not religious sense, is relative.

Slavery was common in the time of the Old Testament, and the prophets wrote of proper ways to treat slaves. Gradually, most of the world came to the just conclusion that slavery is wrong, immoral, and might imposed this idea to many. Not so very long ago, women being in the workplace was considered wrong and immoral. It was considered immoral for women to smoke cigarettes. An educated, socially moral, American man from 1890 would think the sight of a woman smoking a cigarette outside of the resturaunt where she worked as a waitress, wearing a skirt that showed her bare ankles, was extremely immoral. Would that man from the 1890's be wrong? Was his oppression of women immoral? What changed? How? Why?

I don't think you know what "moral relativism" means. It doesn't mean that morality is temporal or relative to the various stages of a society's development and the current opinions of its citizens. You need to research that phrase.

Currently, there are countries and cultures who feel we are immoral. The fact that we let women show their faces in public and that we drink alcohol proves that we are a corrupt, immoral culture. There are some from these cultures who would impose their morality on us by force. We cannot empirically prove that they are wrong. But we can, by might, maintain our rights.

You don't think that we can prove that there's no reason why a woman should hide her face? Uh, I think we can. It would take a few ten page threads, but it can be done. Promise. Just as it can be proven that it's ridiculous to stone a woman for engaging in premarital sex.

Wow, your argumentation has actually gotten worse.

So now you claim that "natural rights" come from observing animals? In that case rape, theft and murder would all be OK, since animals do that all the time.

So, it's your argument that a male, in a species other than ours, is capable of "rape". Do you realize how foolish this makes you look? You're saying that the other animals are capable of our complex abstraction. Capable of making a moral decision that results in pure malice.

When the male of any other species mounts a female, either with her apparent consent or resistance, he is doing so because she is in estrus and because he wishes to pro-create. You could never pick his brain and find any of the awful, ugly things that are to be found in the mind of a human rapist. (Yes, I know there are instances where mounting, sans intromission or coitus, is used to establish dominance, but this isn't at all what we humans call "rape".)

Theft. It is an act of deceit. While I've seen animals exhibit behavior that could be construed as stealth, they are incapable of lying. Theft is a type of lie. "This item is not mine, but I will take it as though it were. I will lie and say that it is mine." Animals are incapable of deceit. That's one of the reasons I tend to like them more than people.

Murder. Killing is not always murder. Please cite an instance where a non-human animal has engaged in "murder". Examples such as a lion attacking his own brood won't do. That's an evolutionary tactic that has obviously served their species well. Likewise, competition among groups of males or females that results in death or injury are also unacceptable examples as they are not at all comparable to what we humans know to be "murder".

But, for the sake of argument, I'll say that it's ridiculous for you to say that any and all animal behavior is directly applicable to our behavior. In case you hadn't noticed, our consciousness has developed well beyond theirs.

And you start off "to me". So does that mean to other people it is moral? Is morality simply every man his own opinion?

"To me" is an attempt to foster debate. Unlike you, I don't think my highest calling is to wander around the internet making obnoxious, authoritative declarations of immutable truth. "To me" invites the idea that there might be contrary views with which to debate. Perhaps you'd do well to consider the same.

And what does morality have to do with rights? What is a "fundamental right" as opposed to a plain right?

A fundamental right is a right that exists across all cultural bounds and it is not temporal. There is no time and no place where certain rights don't exist. I have no idea what you mean by a "plain right".

Do you have a clue as to what you are posting? I get the feeling you are simply regurgitating stuff you've read and heard, without trying to synthesize any of it or make sense out of it.

It sure isnt making any sense to me.

I've stated and re-stated the same basic argument in about fifteen different ways. I have a good command of reality as it appears to me. I'm no more regurgitating than anyone else here. Probably much less so.

Mugster, you have, I'm sure, a passing awareness of the extremely high violent crime/murder rate in DC. I'd say they already "can't enforce the law". Might does not make right. The law is an ass. Anyone who thinks that law and order correspond to right and wrong are either very young or dumb as a box of shrimp. Anyone who thinks the justice system actually dispenses justice - well, they're just too dumb to breed. That they do is unfortunate. The good people of DC have the same right of effective self defense that we enjoy - it is simply being denied them. Any comparison to Europe is, on its' face, witless. This country, we Americans, we are the anti-europe, and have been since the beginning. Drboomboom, I used almost your exact comparisons in an open carry thread, before I read this one. Wierd!

We pretty much are on the same page.

This last bit, everyone does it to a certain extent.

But moral concepts are definitely arguable. You learned yours through a learning process as you grew up. We are having a little argument with a few guys over in Iraq right now...trying to impose our morality on them just like we did with the japanese in 1945. Nothing says "we're right" like an atom bomb. If they refuse our money and won't behave the way we see fit, we send in the marines and literally blow the hell out of everything.

So, you think the Japanese were right to attempt to dominate the world and bring us such holidays as the Rape of Nanking? At the end of the day, there's no real difference in having a divine king or a democratic republic, we just had the a-bomb? Interesting.

Get yourself a copy of this:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Morality-Military-Profession-Second/dp/0813303605

This is my last post on the thread.

I don't need a copy of that book. I can find all the heart-broken cynicism I need, and find it for free.

Wow, name calling and mere assertion. What a great substitute for a reasoned argument.

So do Europeans have a natural right of self defense or not? How do you know?

Name calling? That's rich coming from you. I could finish about half your posts with "and that's why you're a dumb-ass, and I'm not". You simply leave that part off, but the sentiment is there.

Do Europeans have a right to self-defense? All humans do. To say otherwise would be life-denying. It would also negate a fundamental aspect of personal responsibility.

Now, I'm getting really weary of your cowardice. It's time for you to stand and deliver. Stop asking only to be answered. Let's see you refute some of my assertions. Surely reasoned argument requires two competing voices.

[The Rabbi]

Gee, you are veering off the cliff of irrelevant.

So you aknowledge in this post that animal behavior isn't comparable to human behavior:

But, for the sake of argument, I'll say that it's ridiculous for you to say that any and all animal behavior is directly applicable to our behavior. In case you hadn't noticed, our consciousness has developed well beyond theirs.

But previously you posted that it was inherent in all animals:

To me, it is immoral for anyone or any government to deny the natural right to self-defense. It's inherent in all the other animals.

And here as well:

To me, it is immoral for anyone or any government to deny the natural right to self-defense. It's inherent in all the other animals. It occurs spontaneously, and it is equitable and good. It is perfectly natural.

So which is it? Do we learn the right of self defense from animals or not?

And if animals exhibit a "right of self defense" then what are they defending against, since you say they do not murder or steal or rape?

Then you assert:

Do Europeans have a right to self-defense? All humans do. To say otherwise would be life-denying. It would also negate a fundamental aspect of personal responsibility

.

But they dont. In countries on the continent I think there is no recognized right of self defense. There is strict liability for acts. If you kill someone, you go to jail. The reason is irrelevant. In America we follow English Common Law and that accorded a right of self defense. But you won't find the same concept in other cultures. It is cultural provincialism of the highest caliber to suggest that ours is the only right or normative one. And btw your list of "absolute wrongs" is also culturally determined.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

" I don't think you know what "moral relativism" means. It doesn't mean that morality is temporal or relative to the various stages of a society's development and the current opinions of its citizens. You need to research that phrase. -Abominable_Hillbilly

To my understanding, "moral relativism" is an old concept. I believe Plato considered aspects of morality to be relative. The two basic ideas of moral relativism as I understand it, are 1. What is called "Descriptive Moral Relativism" with the idea being that the differences in morays across various cultures are more significant than the similarities. Since these differences can be observed and described, proponents of this idea regard it as empirical truth. 2. What is called "Metaethical Moral Relativism" which, as far as I understand, takes the position that the truth of moral judgements change with different cultures and neither the differences or similarities are significant.

In either of these, it is the culture in a "snapshot" that is considered. However, there is nothing that I see prohibiting either school of relativism from comparing two "snapshots" of culture from a people at different times. I find it arguable that the culture of the Jews at the time Abimelech gave Abraham a gift of slaves is, indeed, a different one than the culture of the Jews at the time Michael Heilprin wrote his famous anti-slavery letter in response to Rabbi Raphall's sermon in which he found slavery compatible with Biblical teaching, and that both of those cultures are different from the culture of the Jews in which our own "Rabbi" finds himself here in Tennessee. Many traditions remain, but the cultures are different.

The moral relativist would be, to my thinking, able to compare these cultures of the same people from different times in either of the philosophy's forms (Descriptive, or Metaethical) and still be true to definition.

Edited June 2, 2008 by DrBoomBoom

[Guest nraforlife]

God made man, Colt made man equal.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Gee, you are veering off the cliff of irrelevant.

So you aknowledge in this post that animal behavior isn't comparable to human behavior:

No. I said that not ANY AND ALL animal behavior is comparable to human behavior. Learn to read. My statement clearly implies that SOME animal behavior is perfectly comparable to ours.

But previously you posted that it was inherent in all animals:

It is. Watch two toddlers playing with one toy. How much you wanna bet some "self-defense" will rear its head pretty quickly. Did someone teach them this? Are they able to articulate the reasons for their actions? Will one recoil and return the favor when struck by the other one? It's all innate. Like the animals who are less conscious than we are, toddlers aren't even capable of moral agency. Their actions aren't even a moral or immoral decision. They simply act and react.

So which is it? Do we learn the right of self defense from animals or not?

I didn't realize that I suggested that we "learned self-defense from animals". If I did, that was a mistake on my part. It would certainly run contrary to the many times I've said that the propensity to self-defense was innate.

And if animals exhibit a "right of self defense" then what are they defending against, since you say they do not murder or steal or rape?

They are defending themselves against the actions of other animals. Whether or not these actions are to be identified as "rape," "theft," or "murder" are entirely value judgments on our part. Do you consider it to be "murder" when a lion takes a zebra? Why or why not?

Get serious, man.

Then you assert:

.

But they dont. In countries on the continent I think there is no recognized right of self defense. There is strict liability for acts. If you kill someone, you go to jail. The reason is irrelevant. In America we follow English Common Law and that accorded a right of self defense. But you won't find the same concept in other cultures. It is cultural provincialism of the highest caliber to suggest that ours is the only right or normative one. And btw your list of "absolute wrongs" is also culturally determined.

Again, you suggest that the fact that the law doesn't recognize a right means that it doesn't exist. Are you actually willing to argue that the right to self-defense doesn't exist, or will you continue to hide behind the law?

BTW, as I understand it, you can still rap the bar for common law recognition in the UK. It's just that the lunatic socialists there will now deny you your right to defend yourself.

Ask those liberated at Dachau what they thought of the Americans and their arrogant cultural provincialism.

" I don't think you know what "moral relativism" means. It doesn't mean that morality is temporal or relative to the various stages of a society's development and the current opinions of its citizens. You need to research that phrase. -Abominable_Hillbilly

To my understanding, "moral relativism" is an old concept. I believe Plato considered aspects of morality to be relative. The two basic ideas of moral relativism as I understand it, are 1. What is called "Descriptive Moral Relativism" with the idea being that the differences in morays across various cultures are more significant than the similarities. Since these differences can be observed and described, proponents of this idea regard it as empirical truth. 2. What is called "Metaethical Moral Relativism" which, as far as I understand, takes the position that the truth of moral judgements change with different cultures and neither the differences or similarities are significant.

In either of these, it is the culture in a "snapshot" that is considered. However, there is nothing that I see prohibiting either school of relativism from comparing two "snapshots" of culture from a people at different times. I find it arguable that the culture of the Jews at the time Abimelech gave Abraham a gift of slaves is, indeed, a different one than the culture of the Jews at the time Michael Heilprin wrote his famous anti-slavery letter in response to Rabbi Raphall's sermon in which he found slavery compatible with Biblical teaching, and that both of those cultures are different from the culture of the Jews in which our own "Rabbi" finds himself here in Tennessee. Many traditions remain, but the cultures are different.

The moral relativist would be, to my thinking, able to compare these cultures of the same people from different times in either of the philosophy's forms (Descriptive, or Metaethical) and still be true to definition.

Fair enough. I apologize for impugning your understanding.

My problem with this is that morality, at least a few basic tenets thereof, is not at all relative.

[The Rabbi]

Again, you suggest that the fact that the law doesn't recognize a right means that it doesn't exist. Are you actually willing to argue that the right to self-defense doesn't exist, or will you continue to hide behind the law?

After umpteen pages we're getting somewhere.

Yes, I do not believe in a "right to self defense" that isn't spelled out somewhere, either by common law, court decisions, or statute or some combination of all three.

There you have it.

If you believe there is such a thing please (my third request here and you keep dodging it) spell out how you know there is such a thing, what the parameters of it are, and where it came from.

[Guest bluecanary25]

Heady stuff here. Way over my head. Thought provoking.

Gonna hafta read thru this several times, make notes and highlite.

Let me state my 0.5 ¥, from observations, bear in mind I am not a deep thinker!!

Hell, I failed philosophy!! (If a bear poops inna woods, do it stink?)

Most things we experience in life are a priviledge.

There is no "Right" to : be born/live/breathe/reproduce/eat cake/bitch&moan, etc.

All of this can be taken away, or granted, by force/convention/peer pressure/law or a kiss.

The closest thing to a "right" I have seen, is the right to cease to exist as an intellect in this plane. To die.

Others may help to assist you in your right. But no-one in 2000 years has been able to deny anyone this "right". (Let us avoid religious debate at this time, please) I submit there are laws, by men, pro and con relative to death. But no laws that prohibit death itself.....

If this "right" cannot be taken away by an entity, it follows this "right" cannot be granted by the same.

So, let me close by stating I enjoy this priviledge of reading these posts. I hope to contribute useful or funny posts of my own.

I don't take me seriously, why should you?

see my sig below.....

Hope you experience a pleasant day. (BUT, you don't have a RIGHT to one)

[Mark@Sea]

Wow, name calling and mere assertion. What a great substitute for a reasoned argument.

So do Europeans have a natural right of self defense or not? How do you know?

Rabbi, I know that if one splits hairs finely enough, one may be able to pass the hypocritical - err, hypothetical camel through the eye of the needle.

I also know there are, now and then, individuals and cultures who split the 'moral' hairs right up to the point where others slip the noose about their neck. It is to be hoped that the souls of those who did so feel comfort in their moral superiority.

I cannot make a blanket statement that "a man is not a mouse" - for some, apparently, are. I am not a mouse. I see no pressing moral imperative of allowing other men to grant or deny what I feel are my 'natural rights'. I have those rights as long as I am willing to defend them. - which, judging from what I read and see, the europeans are no longer willing to do.

Finally, I see no particular reason to stand before you and prove my point. If you feel it beneficial, then prove I'm wrong. Either way, it isn't going to matter, because your beliefs are yours, and you are welcome to them. My beliefs are mine, and it is going to take a little more than you've brought to the table so far to change them.

[Guest bluecanary25]

Almost forgot:

And you should be Thankful for the priviledge!!

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, I know that if one splits hairs finely enough, one may be able to pass the hypocritical - err, hypothetical camel through the eye of the needle.

I also know there are, now and then, individuals and cultures who split the 'moral' hairs right up to the point where others slip the noose about their neck. It is to be hoped that the souls of those who did so feel comfort in their moral superiority.

I cannot make a blanket statement that "a man is not a mouse" - for some, apparently, are. I am not a mouse. I see no pressing moral imperative of allowing other men to grant or deny what I feel are my 'natural rights'. I have those rights as long as I am willing to defend them. - which, judging from what I read and see, the europeans are no longer willing to do.

Finally, I see no particular reason to stand before you and prove my point. If you feel it beneficial, then prove I'm wrong. Either way, it isn't going to matter, because your beliefs are yours, and you are welcome to them. My beliefs are mine, and it is going to take a little more than you've brought to the table so far to change them.

OK, so you "feel" you have rights and that's good enough. You don't need to explain them to anyone, to mention how and why you have these things, where they came from, what they consist of.

I can't argue with that. I can't prove your feelings wrong. I am certain you feel this way.

But going through life with the introspection of a potato just isn't an attractive option to me.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

"My problem with this is that morality, at least a few basic tenets thereof, is not at all relative." -Abominable_Hillbilly

Once you say "a few basic tenets," then you get into "relativism." If, for example, it is morally wrong for some to eat meat and not for others, then there is relativity to it. It is no wonder that the Rabbi (whose beliefs exclude the eating of certain foods but allow that gentiles who eat such foods may, by keeping the commandments, gain Heaven) would also be arguing against the existence of universally "true" rights.

As for personal beliefs, I also believe there are some moral lines which one should never cross, but of course there are people who would disagree with my list as, I'm sure, I would disagree with theirs. As to "rights," they are human constructs. God, as I know Him, has never conferred rights to anyone, just ask Job. Heck, God doesn't give rights, He gives commandments. He also gives free will, with which we are allowed to demand rights for ourselves and confer rights to others. Thankfully, our nation's founders demanded that other nations and future leaders respect certain rights which they claimed for us as, in their opinions, inalienable and God-given. May we have the strength to maintain these rights.

Edited June 3, 2008 by DrBoomBoom