Norsefire:
Nonsense. Countries are often measured and compared on the basis of things like their support for and implementation of basic human rights. Observe criticisms of China or Stalin's Soviet Union or North Korea. There's universal agreement on the extent to which these countries implement basic human rights.
The problem, however, is that while human rights violations can be said to be objective, there is still a level of perception that renders it difficult to really measure these kinds of things.
For instance, if we state that murder and genocide are human rights violations, then OK. However murder, in its very definition is the
wrongful taking of a life. Thus not all killing is murder; as for genocide, not everybody views it as murder; they might view it as a necessary, justified "extermination" as, for instance, Hitler did.
Thus we must draw an arbitrary distinction; is all killing murder? Most people don't think so, for instance self defense and death penalty are justified but some killing IS murder.
We ought to use the social system that respects human rights. that respects the autonomy of the individual, that allows reasonable freedoms of speech, religion and the like. You're supposed to be a big one for individual choice, aren't you?
Yes but that is because my priority, and apparantly yours, is individual happiness; thus we would use that system if that was our priority, which it happens to be for many people.
If our priority, though, is machine-efficiency in order to achieve a certain collective goal, then there are better systems to use, like for instance fascism. Not everybody prioritizes freedom and tolerance; some people prioritize culture and tradition, and this is why, for instance like the cleric, their morality is different, as it doesn't find the stoning of homosexuals wrong because his priority is the protection of tradition which is apparantly what he does by stoning homosexuals.
Absolutely. Nothing could be more important in human relations.
Although when there is "evil", and no enforcement to stop it, what does your morality do? Morality did not stop Hitler (in fact, in his eyes, it spurred him on); morality doesn't stop rapists and murderers every day. The police do.
Some measure of reasonable enforcement is desirable, certainly. But that's not the basis of law.
But without it the law is too unstable, and ultimately useless as it can be easily reduced to nothing.
Eliminating the state is as easy as disregarding it.
It depends what you mean by "right", here. If you mean "nobody is moral", then some people are more moral than others.
Depending on your priority, yes.
If you mean "nobody has a monopoly on truth" then I don't disagree with you.
Then what can be said is this: it depends on the priority of the individual. Nothing is immoral and all is moral, potentially speaking, depending on your priority. I can safely say that, for most people their priorities are either
freedom
or
culture/tradition
Now you can have both, I'm not saying you can't; but some people might believe restrictions in freedom are justified in the name of tradition.
And thus we have the more liberal/libertarian and conservative/fundamentalist divide. Neither is necessarily wrong, but they aren't focused on the same things. And this is the case with the cleric: you think what he proposes is immoral, and so do I, but then again our focus isn't the protection of tradition and culture or "God's will", it's individual freedom.
The reason it really strikes a nerve with me when you say "idiot" is that, as you might know, I'm Syrian. Syria is very tolerant compared with other Arab nations, we have freedom of religion and no dress obligations and there's a greater level of freedom in the expression of the arts, for instance, music etc
However the culture is different there; they are good people but they are very reserved sometimes, and they frown on certain things tolerated in Western culture, but they aren't idiots for doing so; they simply have a different culture and are raised with differnet values. And I don't think they are idiots (I say they instead of we because I don't agree with them) for that.
Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia was not a democracy. Has something changed?
A government exists only if it is supported by the people, according to the social contract that you so happily propose
The continued existence of the Saudi Monarchy leads me to believe that the people legitimately recognize it as a governing body; thus the decisions it makes are legitimate law and supposedly reflective of the will and opinion of the majority of the Saudis
Often, people are constrained by their economic and social circumstances, so they don't have the freedom of choice and action that you imagine they have.
I understand. Obviously "just leaving" isn't quite that easy. My point, though, is that legislating culture and morals, while we might frown upon it in the interest of individual freedom, isn't necessarily an "incorrect" thing to do depending on the society you live in.
Genocide is never morally acceptable. No righteous person supports genocide.
This is like saying "no righteous person supports murder", which is an obvious point as murder is the
wrongful taking of a life.
Although as I've pointed out, not everybody views all killing as murder, including genocide.
It depends who you mean by "people". If I can find a warped individual who thinks torturing people is fun and good, or even a group of such warped individuals, that will never make torturing people right.
Correct because in the eyes of the vast majority that dwarfs this group, it's still wrong. Although, if everybody were a "warped individual", then who is a warped individual?
This is a discussion for another thread. I'm not at all convinced that eugenics is necessarily good.
Necessarily? I see you are divided on the subject, then.
Eugenics done wisely
in the interest of human health and survival is always good.
In the interest of individual freedom and happiness then not really, although you aren't a complete individualist (as you are a liberal).
Why do you think a rigid society is good? Some of the most creative and productive societies are also the least rigid ones.
Yes, that's called capitalism.
If your priority is the collective machine, though, then rigidity is a must and is "good"; that's why fascism isn't necessarily
bad, it's just focused on different things.
My specific morality is a fact. I, for one, really do hold my views.
This isn't what I meant. I mean, you spoke as if your morality was somehow truth.
You still haven't moved far from "might is right". It is possible for the majority to be morally mistaken or morally bankrupt. Majority rule (the "might" of the majority) is not by any means all there is to morality.
But then, how do you demonstrate it? All there is to morality is the agreement of people because there is no alternative. I mean, sure you could say that, but honestly if a thousand people thought something was right versus one that thought something was wrong, then what good can they do? They can't demonstrate their position to even be true.
