Equity, morality

[bahman]

So killing a person is going to be an immoral act in the opinion of many people.

Of course. But people have no right to call the murderer guilty. In fact, any individual would do what a murderer does if s/he is in the same circumstances.

We create rights. So we do have a right to call a murderer guilty, because we created the right to do so.

No, you cannot create rights but impose your view on minorities.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course. But people have no right to call the murderer guilty. In fact, any individual would do what a murderer does if s/he is in the same circumstances.

We create rights. So we do have a right to call a murderer guilty, because we created the right to do so.

No, you cannot create rights but impose your view on minorities.

Rights do not exist aside from us creating them.

[Skepdick]

Rights do not exist aside from us creating them.

That's less accurate than what bahman is saying.

If rights are created (and they are), they didn't spontaneously appear globally. The institutions to uphold those rights didn't magically pop up, and the minds who embrace those rights didn't magically adopt them.

The society which first thought rights were a good idea imposed it onto the rest.

[bahman]

We create rights. So we do have a right to call a murderer guilty, because we created the right to do so.

No, you cannot create rights but impose your view on minorities.

Rights do not exist aside from us creating them.

So we have to discuss the whole thing again. But first, does right has anything with morality? Or it is a view that is imposed by the majority because they have power?

[Terrapin Station]

No, you cannot create rights but impose your view on minorities.

Rights do not exist aside from us creating them.

So we have to discuss the whole thing again.

??

But first, does right has anything with morality?

In most persons opinions, most rights have something to do with morality, sure.

Or it is a view that is imposed by the majority because they have power?

This isn't an alternative to the above. Just as with morality in general, the rights that wind up as social norms and/or that end up codified in law wind up that way via a combination of (a) being common dispositions and/or (b) being the dispositions of people who are in a sufficient position of power/influence in the society in question.

[bahman]

Rights do not exist aside from us creating them.

So we have to discuss the whole thing again.

??

But first, does right has anything with morality?

In most persons opinions, most rights have something to do with morality, sure.

Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?

Or it is a view that is imposed by the majority because they have power?

This isn't an alternative to the above. Just as with morality in general, the rights that wind up as social norms and/or that end up codified in law wind up that way via a combination of (a) being common dispositions and/or (b) being the dispositions of people who are in a sufficient position of power/influence in the society in question.

Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?

[Terrapin Station]

So we have to discuss the whole thing again.

??

But first, does right has anything with morality?

In most persons opinions, most rights have something to do with morality, sure.

Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?

Or it is a view that is imposed by the majority because they have power?

This isn't an alternative to the above. Just as with morality in general, the rights that wind up as social norms and/or that end up codified in law wind up that way via a combination of (a) being common dispositions and/or (b) being the dispositions of people who are in a sufficient position of power/influence in the society in question.

Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?

Yes, of course on both questions.

[bahman]

??


In most persons opinions, most rights have something to do with morality, sure.

Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?

This isn't an alternative to the above. Just as with morality in general, the rights that wind up as social norms and/or that end up codified in law wind up that way via a combination of (a) being common dispositions and/or (b) being the dispositions of people who are in a sufficient position of power/influence in the society in question.

Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?

Yes, of course on both questions.

So even two different countries that treat killers differently are both moral equally. So whatever. There is nothing to discuss.

[Terrapin Station]

Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?


Even if the majority like to torture or kill a killer?

Yes, of course on both questions.

So even two different countries that treat killers differently are both moral equally. So whatever. There is nothing to discuss.

"Equally" in that all approaches are equally moral approaches sure. Again, morality/ethics is simply dispositions about interactive behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. It's not as if only certain dispositions count as morality/ethics. It can be any imaginable disposition. Different people have different dispositions. There are no correct/incorrect, true/false dispositions. And then what we get in societies is the result of all of those different dispositions interacting, where some dispositions will be much more popular than others, some will have the "right" people behind them (influential/powerful people) to wind up as cultural mores or as something codified into law. etc., and that will also vary from culture to culture, society to society. Re rights, that just arises from the idea that some things should be treated as inviolable.

[bahman]

Yes, of course on both questions.

So even two different countries that treat killers differently are both moral equally. So whatever. There is nothing to discuss.

"Equally" in that all approaches are equally moral approaches sure. Again, morality/ethics is simply dispositions about interactive behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. It's not as if only certain dispositions count as morality/ethics. It can be any imaginable disposition. Different people have different dispositions. There are no correct/incorrect, true/false dispositions. And then what we get in societies is the result of all of those different dispositions interacting, where some dispositions will be much more popular than others, some will have the "right" people behind them (influential/powerful people) to wind up as cultural mores or as something codified into law. etc., and that will also vary from culture to culture, society to society. Re rights, that just arises from the idea that some things should be treated as inviolable.

Indifference. It is about what the majority feels, even if the good feeling is about killing each other to have joy, revenge, etc. There is no room left to discuss anything logical.

[Terrapin Station]

So even two different countries that treat killers differently are both moral equally. So whatever. There is nothing to discuss.

"Equally" in that all approaches are equally moral approaches sure. Again, morality/ethics is simply dispositions about interactive behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. It's not as if only certain dispositions count as morality/ethics. It can be any imaginable disposition. Different people have different dispositions. There are no correct/incorrect, true/false dispositions. And then what we get in societies is the result of all of those different dispositions interacting, where some dispositions will be much more popular than others, some will have the "right" people behind them (influential/powerful people) to wind up as cultural mores or as something codified into law. etc., and that will also vary from culture to culture, society to society. Re rights, that just arises from the idea that some things should be treated as inviolable.

Indifference. It is about what the majority feels, even if the good feeling is about killing each other to have joy, revenge, etc. There is no room left to discuss anything logical.

Morality is about what individuals feel. What gets codified into cultural or legal norms is what influential/powerful people are able to establish, whether we're talking about a majority or not.

[bahman]

"Equally" in that all approaches are equally moral approaches sure. Again, morality/ethics is simply dispositions about interactive behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. It's not as if only certain dispositions count as morality/ethics. It can be any imaginable disposition. Different people have different dispositions. There are no correct/incorrect, true/false dispositions. And then what we get in societies is the result of all of those different dispositions interacting, where some dispositions will be much more popular than others, some will have the "right" people behind them (influential/powerful people) to wind up as cultural mores or as something codified into law. etc., and that will also vary from culture to culture, society to society. Re rights, that just arises from the idea that some things should be treated as inviolable.

Indifference. It is about what the majority feels, even if the good feeling is about killing each other to have joy, revenge, etc. There is no room left to discuss anything logical.

Morality is about what individuals feel. What gets codified into cultural or legal norms is what influential/powerful people are able to establish, whether we're talking about a majority or not.

I don't think so. Look at the history of humanity and all the mess that we created, due to feeling, belief, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

Indifference. It is about what the majority feels, even if the good feeling is about killing each other to have joy, revenge, etc. There is no room left to discuss anything logical.

Morality is about what individuals feel. What gets codified into cultural or legal norms is what influential/powerful people are able to establish, whether we're talking about a majority or not.

I don't think so. Look at the history of humanity and all the mess that we created, due to feeling, belief, etc.

What evidence would you have that morality is something other than what I said?

[bahman]

Morality is about what individuals feel. What gets codified into cultural or legal norms is what influential/powerful people are able to establish, whether we're talking about a majority or not.

I don't think so. Look at the history of humanity and all the mess that we created, due to feeling, belief, etc.

What evidence would you have that morality is something other than what I said?

Well, if morality is just about feeling then why bother and categorized it as a different thing. Just feeling. Where is the position of rational thinking in life? Nothing?

[Terrapin Station]

I don't think so. Look at the history of humanity and all the mess that we created, due to feeling, belief, etc.

What evidence would you have that morality is something other than what I said?

Well, if morality is just about feeling then why bother and categorized it as a different thing. Just feeling. Where is the position of rational thinking in life? Nothing?

So no evidence then, right?