10 years in jail and 2,000 lashes for tweeting that he was an atheist

[Solomon Zorn]

What are human rights?

For starters:

Human rights, are more than just a fancy concept for the fortunate. They are something we all owe to each other, and hope for ourselves.

If that's not enough, perhaps you've heard of this principle:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." â€" Confucius (c. 500 BC)

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." â€" Mozi (c. 400 BC)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." â€" Laozi (c. 500 BC)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." â€" Thales (c. 624 BC â€" c. 546 BC)

"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." â€" Isocrates (436â€"338 BC)

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." -Mom and Dad

I figure you already know the Biblical ones of note.

The principle is common enough, it's application is not. But it is the starting place, for any rational assesment of specific rights.

I might say, human rights are an appropriately high value humans assign to other humans. Defining them, is just the application of the principles outlined above.

We can also feel human rights when we hear about other humans predicaments. We have empathy.


Going back to the topic though, I find it hard to accept, that amputation as a form of punishment is not an outrage, to the people of any country subjected to it.

[Kaleb5000]

For starters:

If that's not enough, perhaps you've heard of this principle:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." â€" Confucius (c. 500 BC)

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." â€" Mozi (c. 400 BC)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." â€" Laozi (c. 500 BC)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." â€" Thales (c. 624 BC â€" c. 546 BC)

"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." â€" Isocrates (436â€"338 BC)

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." -Mom and Dad

I figure you already know the Biblical ones of note.

The principle is common enough, it's application is not. But it is the starting place, for any rational assesment of specific rights.

I might say, human rights are an appropriately high value humans assign to other humans. Defining them, is just the application of the principles outlined above.

We can also feel human rights when we hear about other humans predicaments. We have empathy.


Going back to the topic though, I find it hard to accept, that amputation as a form of punishment is not an outrage, to the people of any country subjected to it.

The quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours? Are yours right or theirs?

  I would agree that some have empathy. Like I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

The quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours?

Then they are wrong.

Are yours right or theirs?

Mine.

I would agree that some have empathy.

There's a war on, between those who do and those who don't.

Like I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?

Go find sheep, Mr. Shepherd, I don't like where this conversation is being led. Perhaps you could pick a less controversial example to use?

[Kaleb5000]

Then they are wrong.

Mine.
There's a war on, between those who do and those who don't.
Go find sheep, Mr. Shepherd, I don't like where this conversation is being led. Perhaps you could pick a less controversial example to use?

How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

  What do you have to compare your rightness to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

Because, they can't provide a better description, of the essence of how we have evolved to measure right, and wrong.

What do you have to compare your rightness to?

Only your wrongness.

[Solomon Zorn]

What are the motives for good behavior? I can say this: if your doing it to please God, then your motive is not pure; if you're doing it out of a sense of communion with your fellow man, you are more likely to do the right thing.

[Kaleb5000]

Because, they can't provide a better description, of the essence of how we have evolved to measure right, and wrong.
Only your wrongness.

Who is they?

  Have we evolved to measure right and wrong or has it always been and we just had and have it twisted?

  How do you know I am wrong?

I have not said what I think is right or how one should measure rightness.

  I was simply asking you questions to try and understand why you believed what you what you believe.

   Am I right in that you think your right because you don't like anyone else's version of right?

  Just because you think a certain way is right does that make it true or just true for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

What are the motives for good behavior? I can say this: if your doing it to please God, then your motive is not pure; if you're doing it out of a sense of communion with your fellow man, you are more likely to do the right thing.

Why can't it be both for people who believe in a God?

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

Who is they?

You tell me.

How do you know I am wrong?

Because I've had this conversation before, Shepherd, so go find some sheep to lead, because I'm not going to follow you through a series of leading questions, designed to show how morality must come from some divine mandate, or it can't be morality. You are wrong. Moral behavior is observable in all cultures. Even the ones who could care shit about your particular holy book.

[Nonsensei]

The quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours? Are yours right or theirs?

Asking this question in the abstract is a cheap stunt. Provide two or more different ideas for what human rights should be and we can compare them.

Like I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?

Going to go out on a limb here and say that the guy who is happy someone got murdered is wrong.

How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

I picture these bad things happening to me, and if I feel negatively about it I know it is wrong.

What do you have to compare your rightness to?

No need for that. At all.

Why can't it be both for people who believe in a God?

Because believers do not hold their fellow man in the same esteem that they hold god. In fact, they view their fellow man as wretches that only god can save. In the midst of such a dismal view of humanity, believers only move in favor of their fellow man to appease god in the hopes of being granted an afterlife.

Acting to appease god is incompatible with acting out of a sense of compassion for your fellow man. Once you act to appease god, the act becomes solely about you and your own self aggrandizement. Essentially, resume building for getting that sweet position behind the pearly gates.

[pr126]

We have the United Nations Universal Human Rights.

Muslims have THE CAIRO DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM which is similar until you get to article 24 and 25, which in effect negates all previous articles by declaring thus:

ARTICLE 24:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

ARTICLE 25:

The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Also, the "Golden Rule" concept does not exist in Islam.

[DeltaEpsilon]

How does our biological makeup say what you or I deserve?

  If our bodies are made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus which one of these tell us as a human race what our rights are?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is one of the stupidest questions I've been asked. One element alone doesn't tell us what are morals, that is moronic. It is a combination of these that make DNA, it's natural selection which responsible for are morals therefore responsible for what our rights are.

[DeltaEpsilon]

The quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours? Are yours right or theirs?

  I would agree that some have empathy. Like I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of them are right per se. Morals don't really exist. They're just convenient because they ensure a much more stable human society. I really don't want to get into epistemology and the philosophy about what exists.

[Solomon Zorn]

Also, the "Golden Rule" concept does not exist in Islam.

I don't think it's codified, but I also don't think it's absent from individual Muslims, or they would not be able to function. It's that basic to the human condition.

The problem is just getting any religious believer to elevate the golden rule, above the contrary laws of their holy books. Those books are always going to be an impediment to human progress.

The golden rule is not a holy decree, just an observable pattern, showing the social benefits of it's application, and how the most anti-social and anti-life actions, can be seen as gross violations of this principle. The best thing I can do, is apply the principle in my little corner of the world, and try to teach others do the same.

As John Lennon said: "All you need is love." While I think that needs to be balanced by competition, love is the thing that keeps our competitive struggles from becoming destructive.

That is the ideal. The concept. But when love fails, a strong military helps keep us safe.

[pr126]

Solomon Zorn wrote:

I don't think it's codified, but I also don't think it's absent from individual Muslims, or they would not be able to function. It's that basic to the human condition.

Yusuf Ali:
Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.
Quran 48:29

This doesn't sound like the golden rule.

You are making the mistake by judging different cultures (religions) by your own standards.