You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Human Rights Are Not Subjective

in #morality6 years ago

I tend to disagree on objective morality and ethics. You see, we have no rights. There is nothing that is above us listing our rights as any being stating that we must act in accordance or we are wrong. All things are equal in this existence, acts of human “will” (I put this in quotations as I’m not sure I believe in free will) are not separate of this logic. Sure, an individual should be keen to attempt to live in such a way to allow others no harm and support their well being as plausible, but the thing is that people don’t. This doesn’t necessarily make them bad either. Again, we are all one - no thing is an individual separated from the grand consciousness. Think of your own mind - is a depressed portion of your mind that is harmful to the rest of your mind wrong? Not in my opinion, it is simply doing what it knows how. It is the rest of the mind which is then tasked with learning to cope in healthy ways with that aspect of the mind. Human rights may appear to be objective because it seems only right that everyone be granted the same undivided access to life; however, life is wholly subjective and one can never force their will upon others, even the righteous.

Sort:  
Loading...

Hello @alchemage and @jayanarchon,

Hmm, one can enforce their will, since they do. Somebody can come to my house and try and blow my brains out this fine evening, and if i don't win, then i'm dead. But i suspect you have a nuanced point to make about that...

"is a depressed portion of the mind wrong?" No, but it is causing rippling disharmonies throughout ones system. It is "incorrect" in terms of wellbeing, i think in the short view. In the long view? The fact that one had a "rippling disharmony" of a certain type seems to turn into a boon, since one knows it in a deeper sense than one who "came up" without it, and thus can speak to those of a similar nature more empathetically, more personally, and with greater detail. But that supposes some level of "correction" of disharmonies then. On the other hand, i have never yet seen a disharmony in another, a "flaw" say, that didn't reflect some similar "flaw" in myself. i seem to contain all the nobility and meanness that humankind is capable of. So might be able to talk to anyone if i assiduously study at the feet of my own disharmonies whether small or large.

i am decidedly undecided on this question of "objective morality and ethics", being embedded in the fabric of the universe. There is cause and effect it seems. Wellbeing tends to be sustained by acting each moment in the service of the highest ideal one can conceive, while telling as much truth as is useful with as much fellow-feeling as one can muster up, while at the same time observing whether or not we fucked it up somewheres. How we relate to emotions has observable consequences. We can allow them to arise and let them pass through us and dissipate for example, learning something about ourselves and increasing a degree of ease that can be rested in. Or we can resist and suppress emotions as they arise which has the observable effect of projecting a warped version of the emotion onto others, filtering perception, and then relating as if that whole process is in the world, or in the other, rather than in ourselves. We don't get to choose whether that happens, it happens or not depending on how we relate to an emotion arising. That could be called "karma" of the instant variety.

From a different angle, human made systems encode their own "ethics" "morals" and "values" whether they intend to or not, as a side effect. "Representative Democracy" and "Capitalism", as just two examples of human made systems, reward certain behaviors and attitudes and punish others, which conditions us to accept some things as good, and others as bad. i wrote an article about that.

"Do we have rights?" i don't know. i have abilities. i can turn a patch of grass into food. Someone can come along and try to burn or take my food, and i can make a "choice" to fight or not. Should any government act as if there are "objective" rights? Well jesus, what's the alternative in the presence of governments? But damn, it can go south real quick if one has the "right" for example to never being offended so long as humankind shall live... That sort of thing can turn into thought police 1984 style.