Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: one_less who wrote (20810)	7/1/2005 1:51:28 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) of 28931

"Are we not able to define what qualifies as human prior to when or how that human would be naturally entitled to rights, or are these concepts entangled?" I think the debate is (or "debates are") over both - what qualifies a given sack of biological stuff as a "human" AND what qualifies them as a "human with rights." Some might say this necessarily occurs at the same point in time, but I don't quite buy that. I can see (or have seen) two arguments in that direction: A religious/moral notion that all "inalienable" rights, however endowed, must begin at the moment one becomes human lest either God's or societies laws be offended; or the notion that one can't be classified as a human without that necessarily implying rights, which are "inalienable" and so cannot be allowed to be endowed where they may conflict with another's already endowed rights. Personally, I don't feel I can speak for God's laws and I know society's laws are what we make them, so the first argument doesn't work for me. The second is wrong because it assumes the rights of two or more people can never conflict or that makes them, somehow, alienable and meaningless.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next