|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 23:59:27 GMT
Other people decided what you can do with your body, and also decided that they can pat you down, when you're in an airport, right? Yes, but you have the right NOT to consent, and possibly not to travel.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 0:03:25 GMT
Other people decided what you can do with your body, and also decided that they can pat you down, when you're in an airport, right? Who cares? I agreed to the possibility of that happening when I bought the ticket and came to the airport.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 1:05:29 GMT
It depends on the person and what is being judged. The people in question are historical figures (Laura ingalls Wilder, Albert Einstein...) What is being judged is racism via today's standards. This is an excellent example.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 1:06:48 GMT
It's easier to be able to pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing when that's what you're taught to do from the start and that's what society expects and you'll get plenty of support. It's harder to break away from doing the wrong thing or call people out on it when it's not regarded by the masses as the wrong thing. It takes more bravery to speak out against it when what you're saying isn't popular. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? I don't think anyone addressed this, but it is the crux of the matter. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing?
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 17, 2018 5:32:58 GMT
Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? I don't think anyone addressed this, but it is the crux of the matter. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? No.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 17, 2018 5:35:46 GMT
Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? I don't think anyone addressed this, but it is the crux of the matter. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? No. But the concept of democracy is based on something close to that.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 5:55:30 GMT
I don't think anyone addressed this, but it is the crux of the matter. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? No. But the concept of democracy is based on something close to that. Then where do you think rightness comes from? What makes something right/good?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 17, 2018 7:05:36 GMT
No. But the concept of democracy is based on something close to that. Then where do you think rightness comes from? What makes something right/good? Well, I am not an expert or as good as others on this board in these kind of philosophical matters. My simple view is that there is no good or right thing. It's just a matter of our subjective opinion. You can argue that there are some things such as killing an innocent child, which may be considered almost universally bad. But if a person was to derive pleasure in killing an innocent then that is a good thing for that person. But because we live in a system where we interact with each other and the ideas of good and bad can conflict we establish the concept of goodness or badness through moral codes or formal laws. At end of the day such moral codes (which was initially established by religions/elders/tribes) and formal laws (law of land) ultimately attempt to make our society a safer place to live. But there are always trade-offs.
Recently, I saw a discussion on another board where someone called a famous person anti-Semitic and racist. Another person sharply attacked the first person and said that the society in old days was different so it is not totally fair to judge people of old times according to today's standard. That may be true but there is always a better measure of judging people of past. Judge them in relation to other people of past (contemprorary's).
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2018 7:07:04 GMT
No. But the concept of democracy is based on something close to that. Then where do you think rightness comes from? What makes something right/good? This is perhaps the biggest question in life...along with what is love? Personally, I can't define it though words like acting with honesty, intelligence, empathy, integrity...…...
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 17, 2018 7:12:00 GMT
Then where do you think rightness comes from? What makes something right/good? This is perhaps the biggest question in life...along with what is love? Personally, I can't define it though words like acting with honesty, intelligence, empathy, integrity...…... People are emotional about these topics......I don't want to get into it. But if a person were to think with no personal emotions then there is no good or bad of any kind. Even things like honesty, empathy and kindness are not objectively good things. My answer will remain that there is no good or bad. Yeah, the good and bad can be established from the point of view of society and can be enforceable through law or social judgement.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 7:52:48 GMT
Then where do you think rightness comes from? What makes something right/good? This is perhaps the biggest question in life...along with what is love? Personally, I can't define it though words like acting with honesty, intelligence, empathy, integrity...…... I'm not asking how to define rightness, goodness. I am asking how to decide whether something is an example of it.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 7:55:33 GMT
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 7:59:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 17, 2018 8:49:42 GMT
Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? I don't think anyone addressed this, but it is the crux of the matter. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? If by "masses" you mean the absolute majority of the population, then yes.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 17, 2018 9:27:35 GMT
I don't think anyone addressed this, but it is the crux of the matter. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing? If by "masses" you mean the absolute majority of the population, then yes. As a German how do you view Nazi Germany? Surely it was a golden period of German history considering how much support it had? I hear Kim Jong Un is a great leader as well, don't you know how popular he is in North Korea?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 10:32:45 GMT
[The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law] because what a piece of paper says is completely irrelevant. Is this a special rule, or 'law' of your own that I see written down here? By your own yardstick then it might be irrelevant. In any case, it still begs the question. You did not specify religious law, just 'the law' my friend, if this is what you mean. So enlighten this atheist: are you here really saying that even secular law is irrelevant enough to be ignored, or is it just religious 'do's and don'ts', as in the commandments? Is it any law which has a mirror in religious writing? Or is it just any written laws per se? And what, then, ought laws be replaced with? Chinese Whispers? A peculiar example, and I don't see what this has to do with the notion that laws can be ignored generally without moral penalty, which ultimately is what you are suggesting - and without due logical reason, so far. (This of course does not mean that every law is to be obeyed no matter what, of course, as the Founding Fathers and others demonstrated, but even then they eventually came up with one of the best known and greatest legal codes we have.) But if you really say all laws are irrelevant, presumably this means for you child abuse, murder, and rape etc are not to be considered crimes at all, as their legal proscription is meaningless. So what are they then? Just ... hobbies?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 17, 2018 11:01:49 GMT
Laws can never be ignored, but they can be disobeyed.
For example, if a law banned my religion, I would have no reason to obey that law even if it were possible.
You just face the consequences of it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 11:13:19 GMT
Laws can never be ignored, but they can be disobeyed. For example, if a law banned my religion, I would have no reason to obey that law even if it were possible. You just face the consequences of it. I read somewhere once that there are three conditions to bear in mind before extreme measures are taken against onerous laws as perceived by civilians:
1. The objection must be an honest one 2. It must be shared by a majority 3. One is honestly prepared to face the consequences for one's convictions.
To which, in connection with violent protest including death one might add the fourth condition
4. Lethal force is being used against you.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 17, 2018 11:16:01 GMT
Laws can never be ignored, but they can be disobeyed. For example, if a law banned my religion, I would have no reason to obey that law even if it were possible. You just face the consequences of it. I read somewhere once that there are three conditions to bear in mind before extreme measures are taken against onerous laws as perceived by civilians:
1. The objection must be an honest one 2. It must be shared by a majority 3. One is honestly prepared to face the consequences for one's convictions.
I would agree with all but #2
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 11:17:58 GMT
I read somewhere once that there are three conditions to bear in mind before extreme measures are taken against onerous laws as perceived by civilians:
1. The objection must be an honest one 2. It must be shared by a majority 3. One is honestly prepared to face the consequences for one's convictions.
I would agree with all but #2 Why would that be? It means your protest was undemocratic and thus more likely to be self-serving. (please note my edit to my last post ).
|
|