Ethics/Morals/Rights. Whatever you want to call them.

Ethics and Morality

Wikipedia Wrote:Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice. Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice. "Moral" has a dual meaning. The first indicates a person's comprehension of morality and his capacity to put it into practice. In this meaning, the antonym is "amoral", indicating an inability to distinguish between right and wrong. The second denotes the active practice of those values. In this sense, the antonym is "immoral", referring to actions that violate ethical principles.

Personal ethics signifies a moral code applicable to individuals, while social ethics means moral theory applied to groups. Social ethics can be synonymous with social and political philosophy, in as much as it is the foundation of a good society or state.

Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life

Quote:In ethics, wrong is the opposite of right. In a relativist consideration of ethics, the factors affecting the way different cultures determine norms for what is wrong form part of the subject-matter of anthropology.

Rights

Wikipedia Wrote:Human rights refers to "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to work, and the right to education.

Article 1 of the UDHR Wrote:All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Privileges

Wikipedia Wrote:A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth. Miscellaneous privileges, e.g. the old common law privilege to title deeds, may still exist, though of little relevance today.[1]

Capabilities

Wikipedia Wrote:Capability is the ability to perform actions. As it applies to human capital, capability is the sum of expertise and capacity.

Ok. Let us open the can of worms.

Human rights are human-created. You were not endowed with any magical, deity-given right to pursue life. liberty, and happiness until your government decided for you.

Rights and privileges, as far as I've seen, seem to only apply in a legal context. You have legal rights to these things. In YOUR country. Meaning you could easily travel somewhere and suddenly have none of these legal rights. These ARE able to be impeded on, just not by your government.

Sure, humans are divine, but all life is divine. Sure, humans are special, but all life is special. Heck, even non-living objects are special. The universe is special. We're not the only thing in the universe, living or not. People seem to think that the universe was made to revolve around humans. Some of your theories of being otherkin already make this bunk.

So, why is it that people have decided that humans are exempt from basic "rules"(and I do use the term "rules" very, very loosely) to survival? Like I was going to say in another thread before it was conveniently locked, if anything, Humans are the exception to the rule, not lemmings. We throw ourselves off cliffs for a number of reasons, every day. <!-- s:happy_demon: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy_demon.gif" alt=":happy_demon:" title="happy demon" /><!-- s:happy_demon: -->

And many things that people state are their "rights" are not their rights. These things people state they are able to do are not explicitly stated as law under any document. They are "capabilities". You are able to do them only because the law has not dictated otherwise yet.

(As I said somewhere else) there was no explicit rule in the Constitution that said that women and blacks could not vote. Therefore, people took it however they wished, and finally, they HAD to put something in there saying that they could vote, to prevent people from impeding on it.

What if the government said, "Hey, we said: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is IT. No other things." ? You were given a basic list of human rights(freedom of expression, freedom to work, freedom to an education) and told not to deviate from that.

Seems nice, but what if you WANT to die?(Which seems hard enough as is) What if you WANT to suffer? What if you WANT to be enslaved? Don't tell me these things are bogus; people are capable of feeling exactly that.

What if something you do denies you life but leads you to the pursuit of happiness? We'd have a supreme court case in an instant.

You move to another country, and all of a sudden ritualistic suicide is encouraged. You're appalled, but what do you do? Oh wait, you're not going to accept it? But hey, isn't that what someone would have to do if they moved to your country? Accept things the way they are?

The bottom line seems to be that we're all lazy(myself included). We have a set of ethics, and we stick to it because it's harder to change your whole moral code than it is to be stubborn about it. If you abolished all forms of law right now, everyone seems to think that everyone would start killing each other and the place would be thrown in the crapper. But think about it: how many people out there would actually kill you for no reason? And how many criminals would start something only to have a mob of people take them down? Most people are self-serving jerks, but not killing people serves them by keeping their lives intact. If I killed someone, I'd expect vengeance from an angry crowd.

Above all, you should be on your guard. Because humans are self-serving jerks. Someone may not shank you with a knife, but they can and will metaphorically stab you in the back. This already happens in a society WITH human rights, WITH laws, and most of this stabbing-in-the-back is legal.

(You already know most of my personal standpoint that I don't give a crap what happens to Sally Stranger down the street as long as it doesn't involve me or my loved ones directly. So no need to make a rant about it.)

So, discuss anything or everything I said, and throw in a load of your own stuff to boot.
And I figure it's bound to get out of hand, so think of it like another "Hot Seat" devoted solely to morals/ethics. Don't get offended; get sarcastic if anything, but don't get offended.
If you can't take the heat, leave the kitchen. Kthnxbai.

*golf-clap*

Without touching on subjective opinions about how humans act and are - places have mores, norms and folkways. Norms and folkways can be violated without a lot of problems coming up in the society for it. Mores are what laws are based off of, if one and the society can not agree, then I think it's time to leave the society and find one that is better fitting, if that is not found, then start one's own tribe. "Run with the pack or get your own" mentality.

Pretty much. Though, "get your own" is not always feasible.

And not always possible, either. Given the lack of territory one can claim in today's time and age, making your own nation with your own mores and laws is not plausible.

The problem is, if you're going by that route, there may not be a single government that holds your personal code of ethics,(or lack thereof) in high regard.

So, moving somewhere else seems unreasonable too.

But if an island pops up somewhere and I have a million or three dollars to go off and stake my claim, you can be sure there'll be a "Simimtopia" up and running within a few years.

Anyway, the main point, if I had one, that I was trying to make was: the only reason we have rights, and privileges is because of the law. If you do not wish to follow the law, it seems that these rights and privileges no longer apply.

They're not a guaranteed thing, either. The law isn't pure. Humans are a corruptive force(this isn't an insult, just truth), and the law is ran and governed by humans. Therefore, the law is corrupt as well. Your rights and privileges you think you possess are corrupt by proxy.

So the term "unalienable" is incorrect.

If you don't follow the law, also, it could be seen as you get lots of other privilegies.

Such as doing whatever you want.. but then again, no matter if you do something the law likes or dislikes, there will be people disagreeing and providing you the sweetness off consequence. (What am I walking about?)

Someone said that animals are not like humans, somewhere here.

Sure, animals are not like humans - but humans are animals.

I just felt like saying that <3

simim23 Wrote:Anyway, the main point, if I had one, that I was trying to make was: the only reason we have rights, and privileges is because of the law. If you do not wish to follow the law, it seems that these rights and privileges no longer apply.

You would still have certain right and privileges without laws. Any structure society is going to have certain right and privileges it hands out. Even in the animals world this happens.

BlissfulIsis Wrote:You would still have certain right and privileges without laws. Any structure society is going to have certain right and privileges it hands out. Even in the animals world this happens.

I don't mean to say it like this but..

.. I seriously think animals had rights and privilegies while humans were still busy wondering why they exist.. <!-- s:mrgreen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_mrgreen.gif" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green" /><!-- s:mrgreen: -->

Of course they did. I think animals have their own set of rules that follow so to say.

I think that just comes down to what you define as a 'law'. If your tribal culture allows for you to stone an adulterer to death, even though there's no 'court' or 'lawbooks', I would still define that as a law.

Thus, all 'rights' are only there as defined by the 'laws' of your society or group.