|
eulero83 -> RE: Rights, nature vs. enviroment (10/11/2013 10:55:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
Actually I'm not giving less importance to the moral aspect, it's just that morality is a set of customary law that's accepted by the society in that palce at that time, I'm not saying that a right must be written in some sort of statute or code to exist but that it must be accepted by the people in a society so that they are ready to condemn any behaviour that don't respect that entitlement.
With the mental experiment of the desert island I firstly used an example of whatever I would find morally deprecable in the following post I told how I would actually react to that kind of situation and I said that being with a person coming from my former society there would be no need to re-define our rights as they are part of our customs (aka customary laws). This is comprensive of both the aspects.
What I do not agree with you is that morality is some kind of archetype, if it was so this would not change in time, but slavery as example it's not always been considered morally deprecable in every place, that's why I don't agree with the concept of "natural" associated with rights.
We have dived into the deep realm of philosophy, which is full to the brim with opinions but which contains no natural right or wrong. [;)]
In saying that morality is a set of customary laws accepted by the society in that place and time, you are not incorrect but you are not completely correct. For example, you would run into strong disagreement from atheists who would insist that they have morals within themselves outside of any influence from religion (which is very often the basis for societies).
I do agree that laws and statutes codify morals. I also agree that societies "agree" on acceptable morals regardless of whether they are codified in writing or not.
However, I do think that absent some societal influence we would still have moral entitlements. Whether they are recognized by society is beside the point. Your example of slavery is exactly a situation where the moral entitlement to freedom is ignored by the society where slavery is acceptable.
The entitlement is still there... even if it is not recognized.
I don't think I would disagree with an atheist, as I think religions born and die for social convenience.
If the concept of right don't fit any social structure in any given time of history means it's wrong.
Entitlement means it's a guarantee so if you have no guarantees you have no entitlements, it's a moral entitlement when you are entitled for moral reasons, it's not equivalent to "moral concept", and as you pointed out a right is an etitlement this means people that could be enslaved (in your country's case niggers) had no guarantee to freedom becuse the society around them was fine with that so no entitlement so no right.
|
|
|
|
