Is belief in god a virtue?

[yomero]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

This forum may not be the best place to ask this question. It appears that most members are atheists or agnostics. But there are some believers, several of them capable of sustaining a respectful debate with intelligent comments.

Many wise persons profess to have faith in god. Their intelligence should make obvious the fallacies contained in any of the supposed proofs offered for the existence of god, such as St. Anselm's ontological argument, the argments from first cause, or from design, or Pascal's wager, etc. Yet they cling to their belief as a child does to his favorite blanket. Why? The main reason that I can think of is the feeling that believing in god is a virtue in itself, a morally right act. Aren't they awere that it is an ethically neutral position? Is it intellectual dishonesty?

I am an atheist, a 6 on Dawkins' belief scale (a 6.99, if you allow decimals). I have noticed that after "shrill" or "strident", the most common accusation against atheist is "arrogant". Perhaps we sometimes act with an air of intellectual superiority. Believers could respond to my objection with "we think you are evil, but you think we are stupid." I hope this discussion doesn't fall to a you too exchange.

I know that atheist will be posting their comments here. What is your position on this? Do you have any arguments I could use when debating my acquaintances?

Some forum members are very knowledgeable in theology and philosophy, but many of us aren't. Perhaps the use of everyday language could make yor observations accesible to the rest of us.

I wasn't sure about the spelling of tu quoque. That is why I wrote you too instead.

[Manopolus]

There are several beliefs held in deistic religions which explain the phenomenon in question. One is that the infusion of the spirit of God provides one with a clear moral understanding that a person would not otherwise have access to. Another is that without God, there is no basis for a moral code.

Both arguments are invalid, of course... there is no evidence whatsoever of the first, and it can be shown quite readily that many people who hold no deistic beliefs whatsoever posess a fairly rigorous standard of ethical conduct, whether we completely agree on the particulars or not.

[CriticalSock]

People get scared. They're scared by the dark, by thunder, by the unknown and by death. This is true no matter how intelligent you are. God is the result of that fear. Religion is the exploitation of that fear.

[kuroyume0161]

People get scared. They're scared by the dark, by thunder, by the unknown and by death. This is true no matter how intelligent you are. God is the result of that fear. Religion is the exploitation of that fear.

It is not virtuous to be exploited or to fear. Virtue is going into the unknown with your eyes open and your brain active so as to discover the known.

[Cainkane1]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

This forum may not be the best place to ask this question. It appears that most members are atheists or agnostics. But there are some believers, several of them capable of sustaining a respectful debate with intelligent comments.

Many wise persons profess to have faith in god. Their intelligence should make obvious the fallacies contained in any of the supposed proofs offered for the existence of god, such as St. Anselm's ontological argument, the argments from first cause, or from design, or Pascal's wager, etc. Yet they cling to their belief as a child does to his favorite blanket. Why? The main reason that I can think of is the feeling that believing in god is a virtue in itself, a morally right act. Aren't they awere that it is an ethically neutral position? Is it intellectual dishonesty?

I am an atheist, a 6 on Dawkins' belief scale (a 6.99, if you allow decimals). I have noticed that after "shrill" or "strident", the most common accusation against atheist is "arrogant". Perhaps we sometimes act with an air of intellectual superiority. Believers could respond to my objection with "we think you are evil, but you think we are stupid." I hope this discussion doesn't fall to a you too exchange.

I know that atheist will be posting their comments here. What is your position on this? Do you have any arguments I could use when debating my acquaintances?

Some forum members are very knowledgeable in theology and philosophy, but many of us aren't. Perhaps the use of everyday language could make yor observations accesible to the rest of us.

I wasn't sure about the spelling of tu quoque. That is why I wrote you too instead.
Only if the God is venus. Male Gods are awful.

[Waterman]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

In my opinion it is not beleifs that are to be considered virtuous but actions. Though to answer the question posed. I agree with the Manopolus, I think that many see it that by by beliveing in god that they will gain the necessary insight into what is vituous behavior and thus the 'act' of believing itself gets wrapped up in that package.

'By believing I become virtuous.'

(that is not MY belief though)

[Cainkane1]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

This forum may not be the best place to ask this question. It appears that most members are atheists or agnostics. But there are some believers, several of them capable of sustaining a respectful debate with intelligent comments.

Many wise persons profess to have faith in god. Their intelligence should make obvious the fallacies contained in any of the supposed proofs offered for the existence of god, such as St. Anselm's ontological argument, the argments from first cause, or from design, or Pascal's wager, etc. Yet they cling to their belief as a child does to his favorite blanket. Why? The main reason that I can think of is the feeling that believing in god is a virtue in itself, a morally right act. Aren't they awere that it is an ethically neutral position? Is it intellectual dishonesty?

I am an atheist, a 6 on Dawkins' belief scale (a 6.99, if you allow decimals). I have noticed that after "shrill" or "strident", the most common accusation against atheist is "arrogant". Perhaps we sometimes act with an air of intellectual superiority. Believers could respond to my objection with "we think you are evil, but you think we are stupid." I hope this discussion doesn't fall to a you too exchange.

I know that atheist will be posting their comments here. What is your position on this? Do you have any arguments I could use when debating my acquaintances?

Some forum members are very knowledgeable in theology and philosophy, but many of us aren't. Perhaps the use of everyday language could make yor observations accesible to the rest of us.

I wasn't sure about the spelling of tu quoque. That is why I wrote you too instead.
Atheists do act with an air of arrogance. We learned it from the religious biggots we have to deal with from time to time. We get it honestly. Atheists ask questions and we get poor answers. This would cause arrogance in a lot of those cases. My reaction to some of the beliefs have been a expression of disbelief at what I just heard and a reply "you believe in THAT?" When a believer is asked a question the answer is "we can't know all things" or "God will answer all questions". I like the first response the best because at least they admit they don't always know what they are talking about. Its similar to an atheist answer to the question "how did we get here"? Scientists and especially laymen atheists sure don't have all the answers but at least we try to do better than Goddidit.

Believing in anything without proof is bad.

[Darth Rotor]

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
FWIW, from the perspective of some Christians, merely believing is empty of meaning or virtue if not accompanied by "works" or actions reflecting that belief. There are other Christians who feel that faith alone is sufficient, quoting a different bit of scriptural doctrine. I fall on the side of James in this matter.

Put another way, if you don't walk the walk, talking the talk is just a lot of noise

DR

[Trent Wray]

If your actions are "virtuous", then believe in whatever you want, imo. So long as you are enjoying your life.

I think in general, though, believers view it as virtuous (even when it involves murdering, raping, etc) because it shows they are willing to live by and die for a belief that is "greater than themselves". It's like fighting for a cause, and it also promotes "giving something a chance," that is irrational. Hope, faith, etc.

[Denver]

Maybe this is a little derailifying, but the concept of 'virtue' can vary by society, philosophy, etc. So the answer of whether and why belief is a virtue can have different answers. In an environment akin to a theocracy, to believe may be as obvious a virtue as not stealing or lying. To not believe would be like spitting on society, or dishonoring (perhaps putting in danger) your family.

In ours, a type of a virtuous believer that perhaps everyone has heard is the little old church lady, always kind, devout, peaceful, gentle, gives what she can to the poor, etc. Whether or not this person actually exists is not the point: it is one picture of how someone in our culture might relate 'belief' to 'virtue'.

And WHY a person believes can also connect belief to a virtue, or not. To say you believe when you don't, isn't a virtue. To believe out of fear or habit, also doesn't sound very virtuous. To believe because your own evidence prompts you to believe, doesn't sound virtuous (though it sounds reasonable). To believe because you feel you are obeying a loving supreme being and you want to help others around you via that, does start to sound virtuous.

[yomero]

There are several beliefs held in deistic religions which explain the phenomenon in question. One is that the infusion of the spirit of God provides one with a clear moral understanding that a person would not otherwise have access to. Another is that without God, there is no basis for a moral code.

Both arguments are invalid, of course... there is no evidence whatsoever of the first, and it can be shown quite readily that many people who hold no deistic beliefs whatsoever posess a fairly rigorous standard of ethical conduct, whether we completely agree on the particulars or not.

That's what I can't understand, how an intelligent and otherwise rational person can believe those arguments. Besides there being no evidence to support either of them, I have one other objection. I'll try to explain:

I hold that an act is intrinsically virtuous or not in itself. We become aware of this by our own means. If god had decreed that genocide is good, any rational mortal would reject such edict. But god can not possibly ordain that such immorality is good. In that case, god has to be consistent with an ethical code that is outside himself. Morals do not emanate from him, they come from somewhere else. Our own brain, I think.

[Manopolus]

That's what I can't understand, how an intelligent and otherwise rational person can believe those arguments. Besides there being no evidence to support either of them, I have one other objection. I'll try to explain:

I hold that an act is intrinsically virtuous or not in itself. We become aware of this by our own means. If god had decreed that genocide is good, any rational mortal would reject such edict. But god can not possibly ordain that such immorality is good. In that case, god has to be consistent with an ethical code that is outside himself. Morals do not emanate from him, they come from somewhere else. Our own brain, I think.

Agreed. This is obvious to those of us which do not hold such a belief system.

Unfortunately, those who have had such a belief system indoctrinated into them since birth cannot quite grasp the concept of what their lives would be like lacking such a belief until they actually discard it.

I think in the case of converted religious folks, it often has to do with a wrongly assumed relationship between their own behavior prior to the Theistic conversion and Atheism in general. For many, their search for more meaningful lives have led them to religion, and they fail to realize that ethical thought does not specifically rely on religion. They only know that religion LED them to their current ethical standpoint.

In the second case, I base my thesis in part on many cases of conversions that I have heard involving recovery from a drug addiction. Of course, many of the paths used for recovery actually suggest the acceptence of a higher power of some sort, so such things are common.

(added) As I understand it, a belief in a higher power actually DOES help in recovery from drug and alcohol problems, and I see two reasons why this might be the case. (1) A belief in and expression of religion stimulates the production of a certain natural chemical cocktail consisting of things which certain addictions deprive you of (I think dopamine, for one is involved here, but I'm not a neuroscientist). (2) An acceptance of an ultimate authority figure can enforce behaviors which might otherwise not have sufficient motivation.

[Minarvia]

# the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong
# merit: any admirable quality or attribute; "work of great merit"
# morality with respect to sexual relations
# a particular moral excellence

I picked that up from a quick google. I don't see god as a requirement for virtue, tho, definitions or not. I do think living your life, not harming others, and doing good when you can is pretty virtuous. Taking overt pride in performing virtuous acts would be arrogance and not being sincere. So I think sincerity has to be in there for virtue.

[Complexity]

No. Belief in 'god' is not a virtue.

[yomero]

Here is a good example of believers' moral blindness regarding the worship of god:

Exodus 32:1-35 narrates how Moses came down from Mt. Sinai to find his people adoring a golden calf. Waxing in anger, he destroys the tables with the comandments and orders the Levites to take a sword to kill brother, friend and neighbor. They murder aprox. 3000. The Lord blesses the tribe of Levi. Moses reproaches the survivors (not the homicidal Levites) with the words: " You have comitted a great sin". He climbs up the mountain again to tell god: "Oh, what a great sin these people have comitted. They have made themselves gods of gold". Moses asks for forgiveness for his people, and god, great guy that he is, agrees. But he must still punish them with a plague.

I searched in Google to see what interpretation believers give to this episode. In none of the Christian or Jewish links I read (more than 15) did anyone think that if there was a very wicked and sinful act, it was the murder of 3000 humans. It should be obvious that this is a far more grievous sin than erecting a statue. The consensus seems to be that this episode is admirable since it attacks idolatry. I was surprised to notice that Judaic sites were the worst.

[Radrook]

Whether it's a virtue or not depends on what the particular belief motivates the person to do.
If the belief violates human rights as defined by the international community of nations then it is a vice. If it motivates a respect for those universal human rights as outlined by the United Nations, then the belief is as virtue.

[D'rok]

Whether it's a virtue or not depends on what the particular belief motivates the person to do.
If the belief violates human rights as defined by the international community of nations then it is a vice. If it motivates a respect for those universal human rights as outlined by the United Nations, then the belief is as virtue.

Did you just refer to a secular source of morality as a measuring stick for religion? Yes you did.

Progress, methinks.

[Radrook]

Did you just refer to a secular source of morality as a measuring stick for religion? Yes you did.

Progress, methinks.

It works both ways.
Any religion worth its salt must be in complete harmony with universal human rights and any secular source of morality worth its salt must never contradict a religion which encourages the respect for those rights. The rights are independent of both religious and secular sources. They are based on the condition of beiing human.

[D'rok]

It works both ways.
Any religion worth its salt must be in complete harmony with universal human rights and any secular source of morality worth its salt must never contradict a religion which encourages the respect for those rights. The rights are independent of both religious and secular sources. They are based on the condition of beiing human.
Ah. Ye olde natural rights argument. Unfortunately, rights are socially constructed, not discovered in nature. They are privileges granted, not truths revealed. That makes them more important rather than less. We constructed them ourselves for ourselves to further our own flourishing.

But putting that aside, whatever the source of human rights, they are utterly incompatible with significant portions of Christian scripture. Unless you think genocide and slavery are somehow compatible with human rights? Does that mean Christianity isn't worth its salt?

[Radrook]

Ah. Ye olde natural rights argument. Unfortunately, rights are socially constructed, not discovered in nature. They are privileges granted, not truths revealed. That makes them more important rather than less. We constructed them ourselves for ourselves to further our own flourishing.

But putting that aside, whatever the source of human rights, they are utterly incompatible with significant portions of Christian scripture. Unless you think genocide and slavery are somehow compatible with human rights? Does that mean Christianity isn't worth its salt?


Not according the the stipend of the United Natiuons and the USA Constitution. the rights are inelienable, innately deserved by virtue of our common humanity. Such rights were always present though not recognized. Once recognized, however during the European Age of Enlightment, they have been the cornerstone for most modern democracies.



I agree that morality varies from society to society, cultural relativism they call it. However, there are definite universal rights as outlined by the United States Constitution and by the United Nations which are universally recognoized as legitimate. It's these rights which are used to determine when nations or people are behavinbg in a manner deservinbg negative sanctioning via embargoes, imprisonment, of military intervention.. Such rights are also used to determine when crimes against hjumanity have been committed during. You know, such as the crimes committed under Nazi Germany. If indeed we insist on adhering to the sophist idea that there is nor right or wrong, then these heinous atrocities of genocide against defensless people could not be judged either right nor wrong. Or if a woman is gang raped, then we would be forced to say that it is morally neutral. Or if someone breaks into your house and steals all your belongings, well, that too would have to be considered morally neutraL. In short, all attempts to deter crime could be argued away as unjustified.


Btw
Courses in ethics recognize the existence of human rights.


As to Christianity, it doesn't teach its followers to enslave or kill others. If I am wrong--please show me where it teaches that.

[D'rok]

Not according the the stipend of the United Natiuons and the USA Constitution. the rights are inelienable, innately deserved by virtue of our common humanity. Such rights were always present though not recognized. Once recognized, however during the European Age of Enlightment, they have been the cornerstone for most modern democracies.

A comparison of the mutually exclusive "discoveries" of natural rights by Enlightenment rationalists is clear evidence that rights are socially constructed. Compare Hobbes to Locke to Rousseau for example. Each had different political goals; each constructed different sets of "natural" rights.

Nothing has changed. The UDHR includes the right to vacations with pay. Sound a little suspiciously purposive to you?



I agree that morality varies from society to society, cultural relativism they call it. However, there are definite universal rights as outlined by the United States Constitution and by the United Nations which are universally recognoized as legitimate. It's these rights which are used to determine when nations or people are behavinbg in a manner deservinbg negative sanctioning via embargoes, imprisonment, of military intervention.. Such rights are also used to determine when crimes against hjumanity have been committed during. You know, such as the crimes committed under Nazi Germany. If indeed we insist on adhering to the sophist idea that there is nor right or wrong, then these heinous atrocities of genocide against defensless people could not be judged either right nor wrong. Or if a woman is gang raped, then we would be forced to say that it is morally neutral. Or if someone breaks into your house and steals all your belongings, well, that too would have to be considered morally neutraL. In short, all attempts to deter crime could be argued away as unjustified.


Btw
Courses in ethics recognize the existence of human rights.

Human rights do not exist. Many (and I hazard a guess at most) ethics courses recognize this. The fact that they have no higher grounding than the societies and cultures in which they arise does not, however, mean that they are unimportant.

Platonizing rights devalues and trivializes them. Humanizing rights elevates them.

[Radrook]

A comparison of the mutually exclusive "discoveries" of natural rights by Enlightenment rationalists is clear evidence that rights are socially constructed. Compare Hobbes to Locke to Rousseau for example. Each had different political goals; each constructed different sets of "natural" rights.

Nothing has changed. The UDHR includes the right to vacations with pay. Sound a little suspiciously purposive to you?





Human rights do not exist. Many (and I hazard a guess at most) ethics courses recognize this. The fact that they have no higher grounding than the societies and cultures in which they arise does not, however, mean that they are unimportant.

Platonizing rights devalues and trivializes them. Humanizing rights elevates them.


I am not saying that people imediately agreed on what human rights are. Obviouisly the period of enlightened despots which ran concurrently with the formulation process shows that there was initial disagreement. But by the time of the formulation of the USA Constitution the idea was clear-cut as it remains today.

[D'rok]

I am not saying that people imediately agreed on what human rights are. Obviouisly the period of enlightened despots which ran concurrently with the formulation process shows that there was initial disagreement. But by the time of the formulation of the USA Constitution the idea was clear-cut as it remains today.

There is still significant disagreement on what rights are. There always will be. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA constitution has the "true" set of rights, while all the other Charters and Bills of Rights (including the UDHR) in other nations that differ from it are simply wrong? That's totally specious.

[Sun Countess]

But by the time of the formulation of the USA Constitution the idea was clear-cut as it remains today.
Which is why there was no need for the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, Child Labor Laws or the Civil Rights Movement. Because women and black people all had the same rights and privileges under the US Constitution that white men had right from the get-go. :rolleyes:

Are you really saying that there was full consensus on human rights at the time when certain people were still considered the property of other people?

[qayak]

Is belief in god a virtue?

Only to the extent that any other delusional belief is a virtue.

[yomero]

As to Christianity, it doesn't teach its followers to enslave or kill others. If I am wrong--please show me where it teaches that.

Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
1 Timothy 6:1 "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full repect so that the name of God and His teachings will not be shamed".
And in the words of Jesus himself: Luke 12:47-48 "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But those who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished lightly".

As for killing others, let's just take the first of the gospels: Mathew . Read chapters 10:14-15, 10:21, 10: 34-36, 15:4-7 and 24:37.

I"m not sure that moral relativism can be invoked to justify Christ's and early Christian tolerance of slavery. I think there were thinkers in the centuries around Christ's life who denounced slavery as immoral. Aristotle favored slavery as the natural state of some humans. When he is discussing this, he mentions an anti-slavery position in other philosophers. In 1928, Joseph McCabe wrote "The Story of Religious Controversy" where he lists Dion Chrysostom, Plutarch, Epicurus, Hegesias, Florentinus, Ulpian, Seneca and Juvenal as being against slavery. Dion Chrysostom, a Greek Stoic, gave a lecture in the Forum of Rome in 100 A.D. that lasted 2 days with the intent of attacking slavery. I have not read those ancient Greeks and Romans, so I have no quotes from them. But there certainly is no express denouncement of servitude by the early church

[Radrook]

Which is why there was no need for the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, Child Labor Laws or the Civil Rights Movement. Because women and black people all had the same rights and privileges under the US Constitution that white men had right from the get-go. :rolleyes:

Are you really saying that there was full consensus on human rights at the time when certain people were still considered the property of other people?


People found and will always find ways to justify human rights violations when deemed convenient. That doesn't prove that the concept isn't or wasn't clearly stated.

[Radrook]

Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
1 Timothy 6:1 "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full repect so that the name of God and His teachings will not be shamed".
And in the words of Jesus himself: Luke 12:47-48 "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But those who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished lightly".

As for killing others, let's just take the first of the gospels: Mathew . Read chapters 10:14-15, 10:21, 10: 34-36, 15:4-7 and 24:37.

I"m not sure that moral relativism can be invoked to justify Christ's and early Christian tolerance of slavery. I think there were thinkers in the centuries around Christ's life who denounced slavery as immoral. Aristotle favored slavery as the natural state of some humans. When he is discussing this, he mentions an anti-slavery position in other philosophers. In 1928, Joseph McCabe wrote "The Story of Religious Controversy" where he lists Dion Chrysostom, Plutarch, Epicurus, Hegesias, Florentinus, Ulpian, Seneca and Juvenal as being against slavery. Dion Chrysostom, a Greek Stoic, gave a lecture in the Forum of Rome in 100 A.D. that lasted 2 days with the intent of attacking slavery. I have not read those ancient Greeks and Romans, so I have no quotes from them. But there certainly is no express denouncement of servitude by the early church

The scriptures you offered are not customarily and uasually understood to mean a justification for slavery nor for wanton acts of violence. Of course one can choose to ubderstand them that way. But then one would be hard pressed to reconcile one's personal interpretion with other scriptures.
But such a discussion leads nowhere since we are operating from different criteria. Also, I was not seeking a debate on scriptural matters. I fully recognize your right to reject all religion as drivel. Neither am I under the delusion of messianically striving to dissuade you from your strong convictions. In fact, I consider it a waste of time since such arguments leave the contestants firmly entrenched and nothing is really accomplished.

[Tumblehome]

Not according the the stipend of the United Natiuons and the USA Constitution. the rights are inelienable, innately deserved by virtue of our common humanity. Such rights were always present though not recognized. Once recognized, however during the European Age of Enlightment, they have been the cornerstone for most modern democracies.

I agree that morality varies from society to society, cultural relativism they call it. However, there are definite universal rights as outlined by the United States Constitution and by the United Nations which are universally recognoized as legitimate.

The United Nations and the U.S. constitution are cultural constructs themselves of affluent societies, as is any society that agrees with them, so I don't see how you can rationalize their declarations as innate. If--or more probably, when--Western civilization goes down the tubes, everything it stood for will break down, including human rights.

Treating human rights as innate ultimately leads to a moral dilemma. If my family is starving and I encounter a man who won't give me food, what do I do? Kill the man in cold blood to preserve my family's right to life, or respect his right to life and let my family starve to death?

[Complexity]

Treating human rights as innate ultimately leads to a moral dilemma. If my family is starving and I encounter a man who won't give me food, what do I do? Kill the man in cold blood to preserve my family's right to life, or respect his right to life and let my family starve to death?


This is a moral dilemma for you? It is sad, I'll grant you, but there is no question about the right thing to do.

(Though I suspect there will be disagreement about what I think is the right thing to do. There shouldn't be.)

[yomero]

But such a discussion leads nowhere since we are operating from different criteria. Also, I was not seeking a debate on scriptural matters. I fully recognize your right to reject all religion as drivel. Neither am I under the delusion of messianically striving to dissuade you from your strong convictions. In fact, I consider it a waste of time since such arguments leave the contestants firmly entrenched and nothing is really accomplished.

Perhaps this discussion could lead somewhere: to a greater understanding of the other person's rationality in reaching his conclussions, even though one does not find them decisive. It is not always that we stay firmly entrenched in our opinions. To illustrate: After I posted about classical Greek and Roman thinkers oposed to slavery, I searched for more information and it changed my opinion. I couldn't find the original texts, only critical analyses of their works. It appears that when those philosophers had qualms about the mistreatment of slaves, they were interested in the masters and not the victims. Sexually abusing a female slave was seen as wrong because by it the slave-owner lost control and fell to his baser instincts. The Stoics debated slavery (and they were more interested in intellectual rather than physical freedom) as a philosophical exercise. They were not interested in abolishing the institution.

With enough evidence a rational person does change his opinion, at least on those aspects where the evidence is presented. His whole outlook, I grant you, is much harder to change.

[Tumblehome]

This is a moral dilemma for you? It is sad, I'll grant you, but there is no question about the right thing to do.

(Though I suspect there will be disagreement about what I think is the right thing to do. There shouldn't be.)

I meant it's a moral dilemma if you think the right to life is innate, which I don't, otherwise our Bill of Rights would come from the universe, and not have to be made from whole cloth by our governments.

Even the "right thing to do" is subjective for every individual and situation.

[Complexity]

I meant it's a moral dilemma if you think the right to life is innate, which I don't, otherwise our Bill of Rights would come from the universe, and not have to be made from whole cloth by our governments.

Even the "right thing to do" is subjective for every individual and situation.


There are no rights except those that we claim and hold.

I have claimed and hold several rights. I decide what is moral and ethical behavior and try to live according to these principles. I hold others to my standards.

I do not think that killing someone in order to steal his food for your family is ever defensible.

[Tumblehome]

Understood, but you weren't born with those rights, is what I'm saying. The moral code you've arrived at is the result of living in an affluent Western culture that makes it its business to recognize and uphold individual rights, and because it can afford to. If there comes a time when there's anarchy in the streets and food is scarce, you might have a hard time sticking to your principles.

And the universe certainly doesn't recognize your moral code, nor any Bill of Rights. It doesn't care one bit if you're an upstanding citizen or a serial killer. You're just as susceptible to dying in a natural disaster as Jeffrey Dahmer was.

[qayak]

I do not think that killing someone in order to steal his food for your family is ever defensible.

Well, after my family finishes eating, we can all discuss it but I don't think you will be able to convince us and you won't be getting any support from the dead guy.

If you and your family don't mind dying, there is no moral dilemma.

[Radrook]

There is still significant disagreement on what rights are. There always will be. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA constitution has the "true" set of rights, while all the other Charters and Bills of Rights (including the UDHR) in other nations that differ from it are simply wrong? That's totally specious.


That depends on what these other documents say. If they don't properly protect the citizens from what the United Nations considers to be human rights violations-then they would be inferior in certain areas.



The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris. The Declaration has been translated into at least 375 languages and dialects, making it the most widely translated document in the world[1]. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR

[Ron_Tomkins]

Belief in God is not a virtue... but then again, "virtue" is a human concept. So it's perfectly reasonable that a human or group of humans will consider that a virtue, and have it grant them some "position" in society (Lets take the Pope as a very good example of this)

When we deal with made up concepts, anything is possible. That's why it's perfectly possible for God to "exist" for millions of perfectly sane humans.

[D'rok]

That depends on what these other documents say. If they don't properly protect the citizens from what the United Nations considers to be human rights violations-then they would be inferior in certain areas.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR

Now the UDHR is the measure? You said it was the USA Constitution just a few posts ago. If the UDHR is your gold standard, then the US Bill of Rights doesn't measure up. Have you even read the Articles of the UDHR? You would probably have civil war in your country (assuming you are American) if you tried to implement it domestically.

At any rate, the differences just further illustrate the realtivity of rights.