Edits to post #25261991 by Feoric
Edited at 2014-10-12 12:15:04
At 10/12/14 03:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How can morality be universal if different groups of people throughout the world and throughout time can have such radically different conceptions of it?
You might be close to having a point if that's all "human rights" were confined to, which they are not. Moreover, it's a little less simple than that because human rights of that nature aren't just "we agree not to murder or torture people". For example the scenario described above regarding the deportation of foreign extremists. Because according to some, what is ostensibly the protection of your citizens from being killed is viewed by many "human rights advocates" as a violation of someone's human rights.
"Universal" in the sense that all human beings - as individuals - have the same basic "needs" and as such should be universally protected by the same standards of human rights. It's not just about protecting certain individuals, but rather all individuals. If you're looking for a set of transcribed universal morals that attempts to set a universal standard, then look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Examine those two and you end up with the right to life and freedom of thought as the two strongest overlapping points between very different cultures. Furthermore, we know at a more scientifric level all humans are capable of suffering because they have nervous systems; its not hard to determine that we should not cause unwarranted and unjustified suffering to anyone which is capable of suffering. As for your example, while the right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment may generally not be such a greyscale, committing acts in the name of protecting the state is. If the State is perfectly informed and acting upon perfectly accurate information about absolutely inevitable attacks on its citizens, then no valid case can be made that deporting would-be perpetrators is a bonafide human rights violation, since the act is completely justified in the name of protecting presumably innocent civilians.
At 10/12/14 03:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How can morality be universal if different groups of people throughout the world and throughout time can have such radically different conceptions of it?
You might be close to having a point if that's all "human rights" were confined to, which they are not. Moreover, it's a little less simple than that because human rights of that nature aren't just "we agree not to murder or torture people". For example the scenario described above regarding the deportation of foreign extremists. Because according to some, what is ostensibly the protection of your citizens from being killed is viewed by many "human rights advocates" as a violation of someone's human rights.
"Universal" in the sense that all human beings - as individuals - have the same basic "needs" and as such should be universally protected by the same standards of human rights. It's not just about protecting certain individuals, but rather all individuals. If you're looking for a set of transcribed universal morals that attempts to set a universal standard, then look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Examine those two and you end up with the right to life and freedom of thought as the two strongest overlapping points between very different cultures. Furthermore, we know at a more scientifric level all humans are capable of suffering because they have nervous systems; its not hard to determine that we should not cause unwarranted and unjustified suffering to anyone which is capable of suffering. As for your example, while the right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment may generally not be such a greyscale, committing acts in the name of protecting the State is. If the State is perfectly informed and acting upon perfectly accurate information about absolutely inevitable attacks on its citizens, then no valid case can be made that deporting would-be perpetrators is a bonafide human rights violation, since the act is completely justified in the name of protecting presumably innocent civilians.
