Years after burning a bible, Christopher Hitchens' simple-minded brother Peter let a painting scare him back to Christianity. Now he's an avid Christian apologist: http://bit.ly/bPdUJ8
I love this quote by Peter:
Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.
.....
For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.
Peter ignores two significant problems with this line of thinking:
1. If the non-human source of the moral code is imaginary, the human imagination is the only limit to what can be deemed moral and immoral; and
2. Assuming that the non-human source of the moral code exists, there is nothing to stop that source from deeming any action, no matter how deplorable (i.e. rape), to be moral.
5 comments:
Two points. First, it is readily apparent that Chris has something to learn from his brother: personal grooming and fashion.
Second, the ironic part about Peter's reasoning is that, of course, morality does change over time. It has to. And thank goodness it does. Otherwise, for example, we would all be lynching homosexuals, and execution by hanging would still be going on.
To CKDC - Thats the point if morality is not set by a higher power and can change over time depending on the mood of the populace then lynching homosexuals and execution by hanging is just around the corner given the fickleness of human nature and the mood of the masses.
To Tam - A bit harsh calling Peter Hitchens simple minded is the man not entitled to his beliefs just like all atheist`s are entitled to their belief in spite of the evidence. I think you would agree the rule is more weighty
than the exception. so lets which side has most rules
1 - rule matter does not arise from nothing
2- rule life only comes from pre-existing life
3 - rule animals always reproduce after their own kind ,horses, cats, monkeys etc
4- rule mutations are detrimental in reproduction
5- rule mutations never produce new information
6- rule fossils are of fully defined creatures no missing links
7 - design demans a designer
if you disagree please reply with specific exceptions.
Martin, don't confuse morality with human rights.
Human rights have always been the same, but we just do a generally bad job of enforcing them. Empirically, in fact, we did such a horrible job that in 1948 the UN wrote the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and most countries signed it, agreeing to do a better job of correcting violations in their own countries. Of course, signing a document doesn't mean you'll actually enforce what you agree to (clearly, as even the USA still has many human rights violations).
The UDHR echoes most of the ideas put forward in the US Constitution by Thomas Jefferson (and even those not put forward, but highly suggested, like Jefferson's abolishment of slavery, though that clause was removed at the last second when the Founders realized most of the country would revolt against this notion).
Morality, on the other hand, is a system of conduct and ethics. Hence, morality is exactly what human rights is NOT. Human rights are objective. They are rights we believe all humans innately have. Morality is subjective, as it's designed for peop
In other words, human rights tell us what is objectively right or wrong. Morality tells us what is subjectively right or wrong. Morality must change over time, as humans evolve both biologically and sociologically.
Human rights example: humans have always - and always will have - the right to live freely, speak freely, childhood education, freedom from persecution, etc. Those are human rights.
Morality example: Today, humans have a moral obligation to consume only ~2,000 calories/day. This came about due to rapid industrialization of the fast food industry, leading to unprecedented disease rates in the US (e.g. diabetes, cancer). However, 400 years ago humans had a moral obligation to consume as much food as possible, as often as possible. This was because one didn't necessarily know when their next meal would come, or what it would be.
Tyler,
You said, "Human rights are objective." Very bold statement to make. I'm going to assuming that me going to the mall with my rifle and arbitrarily knocking off kids just for fun would violate "objective" human rights. Why?
Also, the UN believes that x-amount of paid vacation days a year is a human right. I would disagree with that, what are your thoughts?
Finally, what about abortion? The UN gives zero rights to the human being in the womb. What gives a child these objective human rights the second they are born, when the second before they had zero rights?
Post a Comment