Universal Morality/Human Rights

[Rival]

Probably still not enough information for me tbh. Like, most of the nation the US fought posed very little danger and had little expansion, but the consequence of a large superpower exercising de cart authority is vast. And even if I thought our intentions were genuinely and mostly good (and I don't) that hasn't change that we've destabilized regions and made them worse trying to 'better' them.

But again, I'm not a pacifist, but I also think easy answers are seldom reliable ones. Especially when there's layers of 'state intel' and 'national security.'

I've also definitely intervened in cases more locally where abuse was happening and I could get better information. (specifically, getting someone out of an abusive home where a parent definitely had the worst case of 'every man's home is his castle.')

Thanks.

I'm not trying to bait you. I'm of the opinion that each nation has the right to whichever morality it likes if they declare it legal, which I know is a controversial opinion. It's not because I think everything is acceptable, but because I cannot really come up with an argument sans God as to why my morality ought to be forced on other people in a separate nation where they have their own laws. I think my morality is better and would improve them as people, but I cannot prove it and trying to force it on people is no better. I do not believe there are universal morals that transcend human beings, but I do believe we will be judged.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thanks.

I'm not trying to bait you. I'm of the opinion that each nation has the right to whichever morality it likes if they declare it legal, which I know is a controversial opinion. It's not because I think everything is acceptable, but because I cannot really come up with an argument sans God as to why my morality ought to be forced on other people in a separate nation where they have their own laws. I think my morality is better and would improve them as people, but I cannot prove it and trying to force it on people is no better. I do not believe there are universal morals that transcend human beings, but I do believe we will be judged.

I generally agree with you (except obviously not being theistic), but also have exceptions. Like I would definitely not turn over slaves that made it into the US even though that nation believes they should have extradition rights. Nor am I opposed to people forming rescue and aid groups. I just think military and paramilitary actions is its whole kettle of fish that should be considered very carefully.

 

[icehorse]

@Rival @ADigitalArtist - And I'm not trying to bait either of you, this is a refreshing civil discussion, hooray!

But let's jump back a few posts - I'm not sure I'd agree that "nations" are a good idea (or an unavoidable one)?

 

[Rival]

@Rival @ADigitalArtist - And I'm not trying to bait either of you, this is a refreshing civil discussion, hooray!

But let's jump back a few posts - I'm not sure I'd agree that "nations" are a good idea (or an unavoidable one)?

I am basing the thread on the world we live in, rather than an idealised one according to whomever. I believe in the nation-state precisely because I believe other cultures need to butt out.

 

[icehorse]

I am basing the thread on the world we live in, rather than an idealised one according to whomever. I believe in the nation-state precisely because I believe other cultures need to butt out.

Would it fair to say your question in the OP could be generalized to something like: "Could / should an international body rightly impose anything on individual nations?"

I'm not sure I've got this right, I'm sincerely trying to understand the OP and this latest post of yours?

Edit addition:

In other words is this thread about morals or about or sovereignty or some combination of the two?

 

[Rival]

Would it fair to say your question in the OP could be generalized to something like: "Could / should an international body rightly impose anything on individual nations?"

I'm not sure I've got this right, I'm sincerely trying to understand the OP and this latest post of yours?

I'm asking if there's a transcendent set of ethics/morals that some people believe in, because supporting a supranational body such as the UN, which has declared UDHR, seems to suggest there are such a thing as universal human rights, above and beyond individual nations', cultures' etc. laws and customs. For instance, if a country is engaging in slavery, the UDHR condemns that and that is used as a pretext for other nations to boycott, invade or otherwise harm the slaver nation - based on 'rights' the slaver nation clearly doesn't believe in. But the UDHR is jsut as invented as the slaver morality, so what allows various nations to come up with some bizarre notion of 'universal morals' and even try enforcing them, unless it believes there are morals that are transcendent, not man-made, and thus above national law and they somehow have the right to enforce them.

 

[icehorse]

But the UDHR is jsut as invented as the slaver morality, so what allows various nations to come up with some bizarre notion of 'universal morals' and even try enforcing them, unless it believes there are morals that are transcendent, not man-made, and thus above national law and they somehow have the right to enforce them.

A third possibility is that by using reason and logic these nations conclude that there are universal morals. That these morals can be both universal AND non-transcendent, i.e., man-made.

 

[Rival]

A third possibility is that by using reason and logic these nations conclude that there are universal morals. That these morals can be both universal AND non-transcendent, i.e., man-made.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that over 200 nations with countless subcultures will come to the same conclusions.

 

[icehorse]

It strikes me as highly unlikely that over 200 nations with countless subcultures will come to the same conclusions.

Agreed. Theocracies and Necrocracies being obvious examples.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Is there a universal morality that transcends nations/cultures etc. that can be enforced by an international body?

For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares everyone has these, but I ask:

- From where?

- Accorded by whom?

- Enforced by who or what?

And what if a nation disagrees? If a nation democratically elects or socially acknowledges a leader/emperor etc. and this government applies laws that go against any of these human rights, what gives an international body the right to intervene and, more importantly, on what basis can universal morals and rights be said to exist? Are they not just a creation of the more powerful nations and bodies at the time they're created? Or is there some suggestion of a higher, non-temporal, non-contextual, non-situational set of values that exist for all time? If so, how are these proven and what gives anyone the right to impose them on non-compliant nations and cultures?

This is one reason why a one world government should not exist. People should be able to live in a society with the rights they agree with. Rights are derived by people that form governments. There are no universal rights.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It strikes me as highly unlikely that over 200 nations with countless subcultures will come to the same conclusions.

Unlikely as it may be but what are the alternatives - especially when nuclear weapons are being flashed about as macho warnings to others to accept one particular perspective or get what they (the rest of us too) deserve? Can you not see a core of moral behaviour at least - where such things like apostasy vanish or freedom to have one's own religious belief should be the norm?

 

[Rival]

Unlikely as it may be but what are the alternatives - especially when nuclear weapons are being flashed about as macho warnings to others to accept one particular perspective or get what they (the rest of us too) deserve? Can you not see a core of moral behaviour at least - where such things like apostasy vanish or freedom to have one's own religious belief should be the norm?

No, because that's just not how human beings have operated for the last several thousand years.

But I think my point is being missed.

It's not 'can we all agree on...' it's a more fundamental, 'are there transcendent moral principles by which one nation can judge another even if the nation being judged has gone through all the correct local legal channels to legalise what the other nations hates on the basis of this "universal moral law"'?

If so, see the questions in my OP.

If not, on what possible basis do we judge others' moral codes when we cannot even prove the validity of our own, other than it being an opinion?

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, because that's just not how human beings have operated for the last several thousand years.

But I think my point is being missed.

It's not 'can we all agree on...' it's a more fundamental, 'are there transcendent moral principles by which one nation can judge another even if the nation being judged has gone through all the correct local legal channels to legalise what the other nations hates on the basis of this "universal moral law"'?

If so, see the questions in my OP.

If not, on what possible basis do we judge others' moral codes when we cannot even prove the validity of our own, other than it being an opinion?

I think it is likely to be as most things - consensus, and as to causing the least harms. Hence why we mostly will all agree as to the core of behaviour being appropriate unless we are somehow dominated as to beliefs by something else. And I mostly couldn't care less as to how we operated in the past, given we have to determine the future, unless we don't care as to such.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is an immensely difficult question, and as is so often the case, religion will play an important part. Too often, sadly, a harmful part.

I can only speak from my own perspective on this, as a Humanist, a liberal democrat with a social conscience, and most importantly, as one who believes that governments are human constructions to enable us to get things done that are beyond the capacities of individuals or small communities. Governments, most importantly, should govern, not rule. Humans do not need to be ruled, but they do often need to cooperate at levels that our evolution on the African savannah does not really equip us for.

As I humanist, I believe that all humans (barring blatantly anti-social behaviours) are of equal value. Not "equal" -- no philosophy can make us that, as we all have our individual capabilities and weaknesses, desires and dislikes, and so on. But we are of equal value. If I believe that, I can only believe that every human has some of the same essential needs that I wish for myself: life, liberty, the right to pursue my own ends and satisfactions. I also believe that, as a social species, all humans have a duty to at least not deprive other humans of those same things -- in other words, to do no harm.

From that, I understand what the UDHR is all about. It recognizes that we are different, that we have, as I said, our individual capabilities and weaknesses, desires and dislikes, etc. But it attempts to enshrine our right to be free from interference -- especially by governments (I don't recognize "rulers") in the pursuit of our individual ends -- so long as we do not harm others.

Women are as fully human as men, and therefore must be enable to pursue education, their own liberty, participation in elections, the jobs they want, and so on. Gay people are as fully human as straight people, and everyone should have the right to pursue that area of their happiness and satisfaction, too -- so long as we do not harm. Gay or straight, it must be wrong to act sexually against anyone's will, for example, but it must also be right for two persons (of any gender) to enter into the relationships that a society recognizes (that may be marriage of two persons, or more), with the same rights and responsibilities afforded by the society.

For me, these things are not given by God, or granted by state or universal charters, but are ours by the very nature of our being human. No human born, for example, can possibly be considered the property of any other human -- humans are neither crops nor livestock. And if they cannot at birth, then they cannot then be slaves, except at their own express consent, and for only so long as that consent continues to be given, at any other time in their lives.

This is what Humanism, and my own philosophy, teaches me: that I can know right from wrong without having been taught or commanded, through nothing other than my recognition of my humanity in the company of humans, and through my reason considering what I've written above.

 

[Rival]

But we are of equal value.

How is this proven or otherwise shown though?

 

[Rival]

Would it fair to say your question in the OP could be generalized to something like: "Could / should an international body rightly impose anything on individual nations?"

I'm not sure I've got this right, I'm sincerely trying to understand the OP and this latest post of yours?

Edit addition:

In other words is this thread about morals or about or sovereignty or some combination of the two?

Broadly this thread is about whether there is some kind of natural moral law that binds all humans and which can be imposed by bodies like the UN. It could be applied to, say, the Roman Empire, in which period there could not really be said to be nation states but cultural groups. Is there some transcendent morality the Romans had the right to impose?

Basically, if slavery is inherently wrong and we reserve the right to restrict other nations/groups from having slaves, how do you prove anything is inherently wrong and who has the right to judge?

 

[Augustus]

we need to live in groups to survive, and that leads us to ideas like the golden rule.

That we live in groups to survive doesn’t necessarily lead to the idea that the individual is the supreme moral unit, as opposed to the collective though.

This is a problem about “universal” rights, we might be able to agree on a very low level of commonalities, but complex moral codes run into issues where there is no real reason to view one as better than the other other than highly subjective preferences that are largely the product of our own cultural conditioning.

 

[Augustus]

How is this proven or otherwise shown though?

Seems very unnatural to me.

Humans certainly don’t think all humans have equal value, and we have to learn it as an abstract principle.

We are hardwired not to see all humans as equal.

 

[icehorse]

Broadly this thread is about whether there is some kind of natural moral law that binds all humans and which can be imposed by bodies like the UN. It could be applied to, say, the Roman Empire, in which period there could not really be said to be nation states but cultural groups. Is there some transcendent morality the Romans had the right to impose?

Basically, if slavery is inherently wrong and we reserve the right to restrict other nations/groups from having slaves, how do you prove anything is inherently wrong and who has the right to judge?

That we live in groups to survive doesn’t necessarily lead to the idea that the individual is the supreme moral unit, as opposed to the collective though.

This is a problem about “universal” rights, we might be able to agree on a very low level of commonalities, but complex moral codes run into issues where there is no real reason to view one as better than the other other than highly subjective preferences that are largely the product of our own cultural conditioning.

It seems that there are two questions on the table right now:

1 - Are there universal moral laws?
2 - If so, can they be imposed on others?

For #1, I'd say that - ignoring relativists - there are some universal axioms. And that from these axioms, sets of morals can be constructed. So I think we could have more than one set of morals that all follow the same axioms, and that would be okay.

For #2, I'd say one of our axioms would be freedom of movement is good, so people could just move to or away from different systems as they wish. I guess that means I don't think it would be a good idea to impose one set of morals on others - but I do think that if a set of morals is in opposition to universal axioms, we should be able to do something about that. E.g., if one country has slaves, perhaps the rest of us would put economic sanctions on that country?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How is this proven or otherwise shown though?

It is not. I accept it as an axiom. I can see no reason to think that any person, at their birth, is of greater or lesser worth than another. And as a humanist, I affirm that humans have the freedom to give meaning, value, and purpose to their lives by their own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity.