sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Sure, if you look at it from a utilitarian perspective I suppose.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

"One's rights end where another's begin" - Morally speaking I agree with this, and I've heard this phrase used by animal rights activists to argue that humans shouldn't have the right to violate animals' (moral) rights to be free, to not be killed, harmed, exploited etc. at least by humans who are moral agents & don't need to do so.

Again, there is a difference between moral and legal rights. Just like in the case of human slavery where some humans technically had the legal right to enslave other humans - and I would agree that those laws were unethical to begin with since the moral rights of those slave owners to do things ("positive" rights) ended where the moral rights of the victims to be free from oppression/harm/etc ("negative" rights) began - many people argue that the current legal rights of humans to, basically, enslave & kill non-human animals, are similarly built on unethical laws, and don't translate to moral rights, in the sense that humans' rights also end where other animals' rights begin, morally speaking (such a position would of course entail action to liberate non-human animals via boycotting of animal exploitation (veganism) as a moral obligation, similarly to how when the laws that enabled people to own slaves were in place, boycotting the slave trade and being an abolitionist would also be considered a moral obligation by most people today).

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 days ago

I would also add that it seems that rights are a human concept/social construct, even just in the sense that we're interpreting what we believe to be ethical/right/moral, even if it's objectively correct; or we're enforcing laws based on what people believe is correct, or in some cases what serves certain people personally at the expense of what most people believe is right if the laws are corrupt/undemocratic.

So I think if we're going to claim that a certain right "just is", since we're the ones creating these concepts even if it's based on our observation of the world and an interpretation that was theoretically objectively correct if not a belief, it falls on us to rationalise and describe how we're coming to these conclusions and what we're basing this assertion of a certain right on. Otherwise, "it's a human right because it's a human right" is just circular reasoning and has no explanation. How are we formulating our basis for what is a human right? Is it legality? Is it moral beliefs or what we reason (or even logically prove somehow) is objectively morally right? Or ... what?

For example, in the case of animal rights theory, many people believe that there are moral rights that animals hold as moral patients, i.e. "negative rights" (= freedom from something being done to an individual) not to be exploited and killed by humans (moral agents), which extend logically from the belief (or fact) of human rights also being morally correct. And in this view, humans by way of our laws, do hold legally the "positive rights" (= freedom of an individual to do something) to exploit and kill animals, but these legal rights are simultaneously violating the moral rights of the animals to not have these things done to them by humans/moral agents.

In this case too, similar to what you said about the human condition, we could argue that something about the condition of animals (which could for example be sentience/consciousness, which they share with humans who are also animals), is the basis for them having these rights, but even then we're still speculating based on what we believe is either subjectively or objectively moral (since in that case obviously what's legal is in contradiction with what's deemed to be moral), and I'm not sure what third definition of rights could be being applied there whether it be in the context of human rights or animal rights.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

Human rights describes the individuals that the rights pertain to, no? So those human rights could either be based in legality or in morality, which wouldn't always align. People may also have different beliefs about which human rights are morally justified and which ones aren't. If there's a third kind of human right that isn't based on what's legal or what's believed to be (or, fundamentally is) moral, then what's it based in?

Inherent to the human condition is interesting, but isn't that still a moral stance/belief? Even if you argue that it's objectively moral (and if you don't believe in moral subjectivism/moral relativism) or objectively the right thing for humans to have rights based on the kind of beings that they are, how is that separate from morality? As far as I know when someone says "this is a human right" they're usually asserting that they believe it's morally correct for humans to have a certain right, and that it would be wrong to violate that right. Occasionally someone says "this is a legally protected human right" to emphasise that it's a legal right enforced by law. I'm not sure by what metric rights could be ascribed or theorised conceptually to apply to certain individuals, if not law or ethics.

For example, you could say that the law did violate the enslaved's moral human rights, by assigning other humans a legal right to own them, which many at the time would have also believed was their moral right, even if we don't agree with that today or assert as being objectively immoral. If their human right to not be enslaved wasn't legal or moral, I don't see what the third option could be.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I'm fairly sure human rights can be used to describe either moral rights or legal rights. In most contexts people are using human rights in a moral sense, but it can be used in a legal sense too. If you're arguing for a third definition of human rights which isn't based in morality (what's good) or legality (what's been passed as law), then what is it based in?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

They weren't a white supremacist and they were in favor of banning slavery while simultaneously believing it to be an authoritarian decision. They were using this to argue that authoritarianism can be justified sometimes. Your comment assumes that saying something is authoritarian means that you're against it.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

But authority can be used/imposed to take away some else's authority, can't it? Or can authority only be used to do something to someone, not to prevent someone from doing something?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

If it was legal for certain people to slap certain other people, then the people doing the slapping would have the authority over the people being slapped to slap them. But then if the law was changed and took away their authority to slap them, that would be using authority over those slappers to stop them. Does this make sense? Both can be true at the same time

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Do you agree that someone can theoretically have a legal right to do something bad (as in, be legally allowed to do it) without that being a good or moral right for them to have?

I think you're only believing "right" to mean one thing and one thing only, when I'm using it in a sense where legality and morality don't necessarily coincide (even if they do in other contexts, conditionally).

So when I say they had the legal right to own slaves, and that right was taken away from them, that isn't a matter of opinion/belief because that's factually what happened, but that doesn't mean that I think they had the right morally speaking, which is a different concept.

I hope this makes sense.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

Legal rights vs moral rights, that's the confusion.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

They legally had that right at the time. I don't think they should have had that right, or that they morally have that right. I think we're talking about 2 different meanings of the term "right". In one sense (legally), they had the right, as in it was codified into law. That's not a belief as much as a fact. The part which concerns my belief is whether I think they should have had the right or if they have the moral right, which I don't. I hope that makes sense.

-57
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Obviously it was a good thing that it was banned, but I'm just wondering if it would technically be considered authoritarian.

As in, is any law that restricts people's freedom to do something (yes, even if it's done to also free other people from oppression as in that case, since it technically restricts the slave owner's freedom to own slaves), considered authoritarian, even if at the time that the law is passed, it's only a small section of people that are still wanting to do those things and forcibly having their legal ability to do them revoked?

Or would it only be considered authoritarian if a large part of society had their ability to do a particular thing taken away from them forcibly?

55
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

A Buddhist was saying to me that anything bad that happens to someone is deserved because they must have had bad karma as a result of having done something bad, either in this life or a previous incarnation. I don't believe in any of this personally, but I think it would be helpful to understand the idea of karma a bit better, because this seems problematic to me on its own.

Wouldn't it logically follow, then, that it's fine for any person to choose to commit harmful actions on another person, since if those harms did happen to befall the person (even if it was as a consequence of our willful decision to cause them), it would be deserved due to bad karma they had from a previous life (even if they were a young child/baby in their current life for example)? And then couldn't we use this to justify literally any harm we choose to do as being deserved due to assumed bad karma, making the idea of avoiding causing harm (ahimsa/nonviolence) meaningless or pointless?

Also, another way that this idea seems to contradict for me, is that if us choosing to harm someone else automatically means that they'd done something bad in a previous life to "deserve" it, then since we're physically capable of doing that to any individual that exists, wouldn't that mean that literally everyone has done something wrong in a past life, has bad harma and is deserving of that punishment? What if someone bombed all of humanity, would that mean that everyone had been bad in their past lives? Surely there would be some individuals that hadn't done anything particularly bad even in their past lives, didn't have bad karma and didn't deserve that punishment? Or is everyone just terrible (or has everyone been terrible in a past life) and therefore we all deserve to be punished for it, and it's okay for anyone to enact this punishment as they see fit?

By the way, I also believe in forgiveness and mercy even for those that DID do something wrong, but that's a separate idea I guess.

If I was going to try to rationalise this idea of karma in a way I was more comfortable with, I guess I would interpret it that if someone does something wrongful, they may bring bad karma back upon themselves, but that's something for the universe to decide how to address (it may even come about in ways that don't involve decisions of individuals) and it doesn't mean it's acceptable for us to choose to dole out punishments on any individual because we assume they deserve it. Not only does that seem highly likely to be causing injustices to innocent individuals, or at least showing a lack of mercy, but it also just seems like a way to justify or rationalise the harm we cause that we're actually doing for other reasons that have nothing to do with a perceived duty to serve karmic justice.

By the way, for context, the Buddhist person I was speaking to used this idea of karma to defend the evils humans cause to other animals in factory farming. Supposedly, all those animals must have had bad karma from a past life and therefore it was okay what we do to them. Which seems like a pretty gross idea to me, and very far away from the principle of ahimsa/nonviolence...

198
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Have we really become so unempathetic as a society that the act of putting yourself in others' shoes is unbelievable to the point that people assume you must be part of the group you're defending? So I often see people being unfairly discriminatory and mean to certain types, attributes or qualities of people, which I know some would be offended and hurt by. But whenever I stick up for them, I get comments like this: "Tell me you're x without telling me you're x". "F*** off, x". A good example is gay people or trans people. I get heavily criticised for defending them and people immediately assume that I'm gay or trans just because I'm expressing that I empathise with how they're treated in society and think people should be kinder toward them. There are lots of other examples but I'm worried I'll be antagonised here just by saying them, so I picked some slightly more socially acceptable ones (yes there are some far less socially acceptable things than LGBT these days, in my experience, despite the rampant LGBTphobia).

25
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Or what would that be called? Pretty much the same things that would usually be considered ableism, but when there's not a recognised disability involved but just health issue/s (which could be "disabling").

For example, not believing someone about their health issue, dismissing it or refusing to believe that it impacts their ability to function or can be a valid excuse for things (often solely on the basis that it's not a recognised disability), blaming someone's health issue on different things they aren't caused by (and trying to attribute it to the person's behaviour as if it's their fault), and/or claiming that their opinions can't be taken seriously due to their health problem

Would it be called health-based discrimination or something (despite somewhat mimicking the same mentalities as ableism)?

25
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I do make a habit of carrying tissues everywhere, but I can imagine there would be cases where that's not practical...

63
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
-47
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
3
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The word can have swearing but not genderisation which might be offensive (mother) nor allusions to sexual dominance (motherfucker). Nor, other possibly offensive connotations. It seems that the word is commonplace and people won't stop using it, so an alternative to the word may be useful. But the problem with alternatives, is that people might not use them unless they carry a meaning that's attention grabbing in some way, and when it comes to this word it needs to be able to be used in either a serious (non-funny) or comedic way.

44
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I grew up with a thick Australian accent with a drawl I dislike, and have been consciously trying to change it for a while. The problem is I tried to make it sound more American at first but keep getting drawn to speaking "Britishly". Now it's a Frankenstein of all 3 accents and I don't know what to go with.

Some points for both:

▪︎ American accent sounds "cooler"

▪︎ British accent sounds more "proper and elegant"

  • Australian accent sounds more "relaxed" (but I dislike this for myself, personally).
40
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
45
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I want to be respectful but if they say they don't care what pronouns I use for them, that feels like it puts the decision on me to choose what to call them and I guess I would probably default to "they" because choosing a gender for them feels weird... am I wrong?

53
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next ›

DragonWasabi

joined 9 months ago