Universal Morality/Human Rights

[ADigitalArtist]

Imo there is no such thing as objective morality even if there was a divine player on the field, as their morality would be no less subject to their experience, senses, biases, and those of anyone who tried to communicate with it (eg all religious texts are *necessarily* subjective instruction and subjective interpretation and action.)

Since I don't believe age, intelligence, power, act of creation or any other similar factors equates to moral supremacy the only morality that could be codified into ethics, to me, could only be a agreement of shared goals by the majority in power. That doesn't make it universal, universal is just a handy way of saying 'what most of us in power agreed upon.' Not does it equal best, because power doesn't equate to moral supremacy. It just means an agreement some but not all will take on.

I don't think that means building ethical systems are pointless or arbitrary, just that I think literally nothing can be perfect. (Not even sure the concept of perfection is very useful.)

(I have a fever and cold medicine please disregard. Lol)

 

[icehorse]

Imo there is no such thing as objective morality even if there was a divine player on the field, as their morality would be no less subject to their experience, senses, biases, and those of anyone who tried to communicate with it (eg all religious texts are *necessarily* subjective instruction and subjective interpretation and action.)

Since I don't believe age, intelligence, power, act of creation or any other similar factors equates to moral supremacy the only morality that could be codified into ethics, to me, could only be a agreement of shared goals by the majority in power. That doesn't make it universal, universal is just a handy way of saying 'what most of us in power agreed upon.' Not does it equal best, because power doesn't equate to moral supremacy. It just means an agreement some but not all will take on.

I don't think that means building ethical systems are pointless or arbitrary, just that I think literally nothing can be perfect. (Not even sure the concept of perfection is very useful.)

(I have a fever and cold medicine please disregard. Lol)

Hmm. We all share the same biology. The same requirements for oxygen and water and food. We all take many years to mature. We all need clothes in cold weather. We all need each other to survive. No mentally healthy individual prefers disease to health. We all want to live in safety.

It strikes me that from this perspective a universal morality is quite possible. Not yet achieved, but possible. And to be clear, why couldn't a whole bunch of variations be possible?

 

[Augustus]

Hmm. We all share the same biology. The same requirements for oxygen and water and food. We all take many years to mature. We all need clothes in cold weather. We all need each other to survive. No mentally healthy individual prefers disease to health. We all want to live in safety.

It strikes me that from this perspective a universal morality is quite possible. Not yet achieved, but possible. And to be clear, why couldn't a whole bunch of variations be possible?

Yet we all also have many other psychological that emerge from our own sociocultural circumstances and experiences. This means we see the world through different eyes which makes agreement increasingly hard as we increase the scale and diversity.

We also compete for status and finite resources.

The concept of Humanity (and universalism) is a hangover from monotheism, in reality we are a collection of groups and individuals with competing and often incompatible goals.

Human society is a complex system and we cannot engineer these to produce the outcomes we desire however much we wish we could.

 

[Rival]

Yet we all also have many other psychological that emerge from our own sociocultural circumstances and experiences. This means we see the world through different eyes which makes agreement increasingly hard as we increase the scale and diversity.

We also compete for status and finite resources.

The concept of Humanity (and universalism) is a hangover from monotheism, in reality we are a collection of groups and individuals with competing and often incompatible goals.

Human society is a complex system and we cannot engineer these to produce the outcomes we desire however much we wish we could.

Reminds me of a sentence I read in my Middle Ages book by Fried,

'"Humanity is not a real entity but a rational construct" (a fundamental position of nominalism).'

Pg. 356-357.

It's a Nominalist, Rationalist concept, even many monotheists didn't seem to believe.

 

[Yerda]

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?

It looks as though you're conflating several related ideas.

It (UDHR) is embedded with the international order. We expect countries who agree to be bound by it to be bound by it. It was adopted by the General Assembly following a vote.

UDHR forms the basis of lots of legal conventions, treaties and whatnot and these are generally legal agreements to act within the confines of the framework of the declaration but in itself I don't think it is legally binding in any way.

Morality, and the existence or not of moral truth is typically something that we find in religious or philosophical "theories". I believe moral truth exists but I can't prove it and I don't think we should have to demonstrate some metaphysical basis for rights before we should legally enforce them. Or we would have no rights.

 

[Rival]

Morality, and the existence or not of moral truth is typically something that we find in religious or philosophical "theories". I believe moral truth exists but I can't prove it and I don't think we should have to demonstrate some metaphysical basis for rights before we should legally enforce them. Or we would have no rights.

Exactly. Bingo.

That's why any talk of 'rights' is a metaphysical, philosophical and theological conversation, and I've noticed many people dislike those kinds of discussions, because they decry and deny the usefulness of any of those disciplines whilst also tacitly acknowledging their needfulness for their rights to exist. So to many people the US understanding is the default, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident...' but they are not self-evident at all. They are philosophical, metaphysical concepts that are not rationalistic at all. Rights depend on an elevated understanding of the human person. We are afraid to have philosophical conversations on the basis of rights because our Western, Naturalistic culture of reason doesn't believe in metaphysical concepts (so it says) that can't be demonstrated, so we exist in an incredibly tense meeting of the metaphysical with the naturalistic, the elevated with the mundane. Our rights cannot be demonstrated through any scientific method, but it's all we've left ourselves with when it comes to how we demonstrate and prove things, leaving out philosophy, metaphysics and theology, which could demonstrate rights.

That is my problem, you got it.

 

[icehorse]

Yet we all also have many other psychological that emerge from our own sociocultural circumstances and experiences. This means we see the world through different eyes which makes agreement increasingly hard as we increase the scale and diversity.

that makes UM hard, but not impossible.

We also compete for status and finite resources.

Well that's gotta change regardless, if we're going to survive.

The concept of Humanity (and universalism) is a hangover from monotheism, in reality we are a collection of groups and individuals with competing and often incompatible goals.

Historically true, not sustainable into the future.

Human society is a complex system and we cannot engineer these to produce the outcomes we desire however much we wish we could.

Morals are not outcomes.

 

[Augustus]

that makes UM hard, but not impossible

I’ll settle for wildly implausible

Well that's gotta change regardless, if we're going to survive.

We are not going to survive in the long term.

Wanting something to happen doesn’t make it realistic.

Historically true, not sustainable into the future.

Expecting a fundamental change in human psychology and social dynamics is probably not the best foundation for sustainability.

Morals are not outcomes.

But the universal morals won’t emerge out of a bottle. They would only ever be the result of major systemic change, and our ability to design such a system is slim to on existent.

 

[icehorse]

But the universal morals won’t emerge out of a bottle. They would only ever be the result of major systemic change, and our ability to design such a system is slim to on existent.

Well the smart money is on your (pessimistic) side. But I'm not interested in feeding that.

 

[Augustus]

Well the smart money is on your (pessimistic) side. But I'm not interested in feeding that.

Why would it be pessimistic to aim for the best result that’s realistically plausible?

It’s like saying it’s pessimistic not to expect Jesus will return and save us all.

 

[icehorse]

Why would it be pessimistic to aim for the best result that’s realistically plausible?

It’s like saying it’s pessimistic not to expect Jesus will return and save us all.

If the best realistic result isn't good enough, it's pessimistic to pursue it.

We're in serious trouble, "business as usual" isn't gonna cut it.

 

[Augustus]

If the best realistic result isn't good enough, it's pessimistic to pursue it.

Thats pessimistic.

Who knows what the future holds, just play for time and see what emerges.

We're in serious trouble, "business as usual" isn't gonna cut it.

Retreating into fantasy won’t cut it either.

 

[icehorse]

Retreating into fantasy won’t cut it either.

I prefer to call it a "hail Mary pass"

Who knows what the future holds, just play for time and see what emerges.

The math tells us that that approach will absolutely fail.

 

[Yerda]

Exactly. Bingo.

That's why any talk of 'rights' is a metaphysical, philosophical and theological conversation, and I've noticed many people dislike those kinds of discussions, because they decry and deny the usefulness of any of those disciplines whilst also tacitly acknowledging their needfulness for their rights to exist. So to many people the US understanding is the default, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident...' but they are not self-evident at all. They are philosophical, metaphysical concepts that are not rationalistic at all. Rights depend on an elevated understanding of the human person. We are afraid to have philosophical conversations on the basis of rights because our Western, Naturalistic culture of reason doesn't believe in metaphysical concepts (so it says) that can't be demonstrated, so we exist in an incredibly tense meeting of the metaphysical with the naturalistic, the elevated with the mundane. Our rights cannot be demonstrated through any scientific method, but it's all we've left ourselves with when it comes to how we demonstrate and prove things, leaving out philosophy, metaphysics and theology, which could demonstrate rights.

That is my problem, you got it.

Ooft. I agree.

How dare you.

 

[Augustus]

I prefer to call it a "hail Mary pass"


The math tells us that that approach will absolutely fail.

Never underestimate the human ability to make a bad situation exponentially worse via their good intentions.

 

[Rival]

Never underestimate the human ability to make a bad situation exponentially worse via their good intentions.

US: I will invent the League of Nations.

US: I will not join the League of Nations.

 

[Little Dragon]

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?

There can be if we want there to be. We'd all have to sign up to it though. When we ready we're ready. It would only be worth the value we give it. It would still be abstract, a construct. Yet one founded on principles that we can agree upon are for the greater good. As for enforcement and relief, there would need to be a supranational judicial body, to enforce the law and hand down punitive sanctions and provide relief unless nations were willing to adopt the human rights legislation into their own legal codes. So that their own courts can sanction human rights abusers, although that might be problematic if the abuser is also the government of that nation, that the court is asked to indict.

 

[Mister Emu]

If the UDHR is true, on what basis can its list of rights be substantiated?

I don't know what all the UHDR says, I might even disagree with some of it, but it must be substantiated on a moral framework that provides its outcomes or it is an arbitrary and capricious system.

Imo there is no such thing as objective morality even if there was a divine player on the field, as their morality would be no less subject to their experience, senses, biases

Even Christians, who believe God was incarnate as a man, aren't so anthropomorphic of divinity. Nonetheless, I think a distinction of viewpoint should be made, a morality imposed on existence by its creator would be objective for the moral beings within the universe. Like sport, the rules are subjectively determined outside of the game, but they are objective in existence from within the framework of the sport.

I believe moral truth exists but I can't prove it and I don't think we should have to demonstrate some metaphysical basis for rights before we should legally enforce them

On what grounds do you then employ force against others to make them conform to your moral ideas? Because you can? And, if someone can force their ideas on you, that's just right and proper then? Slavery was good because it was the idea backed by the force of the time?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Even Christians, who believe God was incarnate as a man, aren't so anthropomorphic of divinity. Nonetheless, I think a distinction of viewpoint should be made, a morality imposed on existence by its creator would be objective for the moral beings within the universe. Like sport, the rules are subjectively determined outside of the game, but they are objective in existence from within the framework of the sport.

I'm not a Christian. If I were theist I wouldn't be under the assumption that a theistic god was omnipotent, omnipresent or omnibenevilent, or there even was such a thing as perfection or inerrance. Or that I'm playing the same sport they made the rules for.

Hailing back to act of creation not being moral supremacy in my view. Just like if the creator of straws said I shouldn't use them to blow paint across a canvas to achieve a look because that's not what they were intended for, I would say 'so what?' and move on. Intended use by a creator does not equal objective use. They use would still be subject to *my* intended application, not theirs, thus subjective. And I view morality in similar vein.

 

[Yerda]

On what grounds do you then employ force against others to make them conform to your moral ideas?

Broadly speaking, at the point of protecting others from harm.

Because you can?

Because we should.

And, if someone can force their ideas on you, that's just right and proper then? Slavery was good because it was the idea backed by the force of the time?

Wtf? Are you high?