Rights Vs. Morals

[Pappillion001]

But, again, I don't feel religious freedoms are in any way impacted by gay marriage. Religious freedoms are about permitting people to believe what they want, not having society bend over to please them by treating other sections of society differently. As far as I'm concerned, there is no clash between morality and rights on the gay marriage issue - it is correct both in terms of basic human rights and morality that gay people should be allowed to marry.

I meant that when it comes to religious freedom it is a right. That it causes any number of negative things is secondary to the right that is claimed, but those same people deny common rights to gays using morality as a basis. In one case morality is driving the argument without regard for rights. Is it fair to say because they are two separate issues this is ok, that sometimes morality is superior to a right

 

[Pappillion001]

My stance is that neither exist in a natural state. Rights and Morals are like computers and electronics. They do not naturally exist but they are naturally created and relied upon.
Over involvement in either results in fatigue no different than looking at a computer screen all day the same is said for abortion and gay rights.
The point it that nobody even has the right to exist. Nothing is dependant on our existence and if we unexist it will technically make earth a peaceful place. While we complain about such petty issues we fail to realize that we are slaughtering each other daily like animals and yet we argue over marriage which is a man made institution.

The way to decipher morals and rights is to permit the ones that do nobody any harm and leave it be.

Arguably perception is reality. I assume one reason Christians are opposed to gay rights is the belief that if God forbids it and they do not they may be bringing the wrath of God upon them or they feel it undermines the stability of society (I am not saying this is true) their opposition would in their eyes be preventing harm.

 

[Pappillion001]

Just a thought... Does anyone know anyone with the attitude "morally, I disagree with gay marriage, but I support the rights of those who would like to marry gaily..."

I can't s say i've ever meet anyone who's said that

I think the idea of civil unions was an attempt along those lines.

 

[Father Heathen]

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Religious Freedom are all examples of one group who take their position based on morality and the other based on rights. Does one trump the other? Should it? Which is more valuable to society. We say that rights are unalienable (we treat them as inalienable though, yes despite the websites that say they are the same they are not) given by out creator, at least Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, but morals are said to come from the same place. Are moral standards to high or are we to liberal with what we acknowledge as a right?

Freedom, rights and equality are not at odds with morality. By that I mean morality based on reason and compassion rather than "morality" based on superstition and other nonsense that's entirely irrational, unsubstantiated and arbitrary.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Arguably perception is reality. I assume one reason Christians are opposed to gay rights is the belief that if God forbids it and they do not they may be bringing the wrath of God upon them or they feel it undermines the stability of society (I am not saying this is true) their opposition would in their eyes be preventing harm.

In the words of James Hetfield "It's sad but true!" .
I live in a Christian community and pay attention to Christian media. One of the most noted aspects of them is how they believe if a society does not abide by Christian morals it somehow loses favor in the eyes of god and becomes chaotic. By implementing Christians ethics this will somehow make a society more peaceful despite how it does the opposite on occasion. The only way for this to work is for it to be a majority Christians ociety. When Christianity comes head to head with something else it leads in disaster as we all know, look at countries in Africa that have a de facto Christian theocracies.

 

[Draka]

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Religious Freedom are all examples of one group who take their position based on morality and the other based on rights. Does one trump the other? Should it? Which is more valuable to society. We say that rights are unalienable (we treat them as inalienable though, yes despite the websites that say they are the same they are not) given by out creator, at least Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, but morals are said to come from the same place. Are moral standards to high or are we to liberal with what we acknowledge as a right?

I don't see how you have two groups with one based just on what is moral and one based on just rights. As if the one side fighting for equal rights has no concepts of morals. I think that the fight for equal rights for same sex marriage and for religious freedom is very heavily morality based.

I know it flies against the morals I was brought up with to treat people differently and unfairly and not as equals and with different rights simply because of minor differences. My mother would be aghast if I were to believe that it was right for me to discriminate against those not exactly the same as I. That's not how she raised me. She raised me to treat everyone fairly and to see people for who they are, not what they are, and to stick up for those who need defending. Isn't that what is "moral"?

 

[Me Myself]

Rights are a human invention, as is morals.

General rights tend to be similar on different cultures and places but the more specific one gets with them, the greater divergences.

 

[Me Myself]

I think the idea of civil unions was an attempt along those lines.

You seem confused. Civil unions made it posible to have civil unions.

Clearer now?

 

[Quagmire]

Rights tell us what we can do, morals tell us what we should do.

Rights define our boundaries, morals tell us how to function within them.

In the simplest sense, all morality is is the habit of taking other people's rights into consideration.

 

[Jeremiah]

My stance is that neither exist in a natural state. Rights and Morals are like computers and electronics. They do not naturally exist but they are naturally created and relied upon.
Over involvement in either results in fatigue no different than looking at a computer screen all day the same is said for abortion and gay rights.
The point it that nobody even has the right to exist. Nothing is dependant on our existence and if we unexist it will technically make earth a peaceful place. While we complain about such petty issues we fail to realize that we are slaughtering each other daily like animals and yet we argue over marriage which is a man made institution.

The way to decipher morals and rights is to permit the ones that do nobody any harm and leave it be.

"My stance is that neither exist in a natural state."

Everything is natural. Humans are children of Mother Nature and by extension their on-goings and doings are also a part of Mother Nature.

Wall Street is every bit as natural as say an ant hill.

 

[Jeremiah]

Just a thought... Does anyone know anyone with the attitude "morally, I disagree with gay marriage, but I support the rights of those who would like to marry gaily..."

I can't s say i've ever meet anyone who's said that

Yes, I have heard that from a lot of people. Just because someone is prejudiced against gays that does not mean they don't understand what freedom and equality means.

In fact I talked to someone the other day who held a like view.

 

[Jeremiah]

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Religious Freedom are all examples of one group who take their position based on morality and the other based on rights. Does one trump the other? Should it? Which is more valuable to society. We say that rights are unalienable (we treat them as inalienable though, yes despite the websites that say they are the same they are not) given by out creator, at least Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, but morals are said to come from the same place. Are moral standards to high or are we to liberal with what we acknowledge as a right?

It would not be Religious Freedom if the laws did not permit one church to allow gay marriage and for another church to not allow gay marriage. Same with Abortion. So there is no need to "trump" one another.

You don't have to agree with a lifestyle to respect their right to live it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

"My stance is that neither exist in a natural state."

Everything is natural. Humans are children of Mother Nature and by extension their on-goings and doings are also a part of Mother Nature.

Wall Street is every bit as natural as say an ant hill.

Why do animals not have right or morals them?
Morals are created by societies and people and spread to the collective thought. Morals cannot be compared to something physical like Wall Street. These are entirely different issue at hand. One physical and the other isn't.
Morals differ from society to society and culture to culture. They are openly dictated and rights? Are you kidding? The word in itself is almost new. There are entire countries who do not recognize "human rights". What are your rights and who protects them? Who is the one who dictates them?
They are not natural because obviously they must be created and upheld to begin with.

 

[Jeremiah]

Why do animals not have right or morals them?
Morals are created by societies and people and spread to the collective thought. Morals cannot be compared to something physical like Wall Street. These are entirely different issue at hand. One physical and the other isn't.
Morals differ from society to society and culture to culture. They are openly dictated and rights? Are you kidding? The word in itself is almost new. There are entire countries who do not recognize "human rights". What are your rights and who protects them? Who is the one who dictates them?
They are not natural because obviously they must be created and upheld to begin with.

Why would being "created by societies and people" make something unnatural? Are we not just doing with comes natural to us?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why would being "created by societies and people" make something unnatural? Are we not just doing with comes natural to us?

I am referring to something as "naturally found". Morals and rights are not naturally found within people as it requires an entire society to support them backed by social and governmental norms.
To say they "come natural to us" is just a form of semantics. I like many other enjoy the benefits of society and reap the benefits but I also know fully well they are not a natural occurrence. Humans will always do want humans want to do, and that is do what pleases us and that usually doesn't involve anything "moral".
By even describing it I cannot help but use a word constructed by society which just furthers my point as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do animals not have right or morals them?

They do.

 

[Jeremiah]

I am referring to something as "naturally found". Morals and rights are not naturally found within people as it requires an entire society to support them backed by social and governmental norms.
To say they "come natural to us" is just a form of semantics. I like many other enjoy the benefits of society and reap the benefits but I also know fully well they are not a natural occurrence. Humans will always do want humans want to do, and that is do what pleases us and that usually doesn't involve anything "moral".
By even describing it I cannot help but use a word constructed by society which just furthers my point as well.

" Morals and rights are not naturally found within people as it requires an entire society to support them backed by social and governmental norms"

If they were not naturally found in people then they would not be found in human society at all. This is an existence which moves by cause and effect. Humans would not do what is not in their nature to do, that would simply be impossible. Humans are naturally social animals, it is in their nature to form societies, to make laws and to uphold morals and rights.

I think the misunderstanding is on the natural state of humans. Humans are by nature good, they are evil, they are intelligent, they are ignorant and they are also naturally social animals. That is where societal ethic, laws, rights and morality originate from. As if there was no base within the biological make up of humans then there would nothing to cause that effect.

Things do not simply happen in an existence ruled by cause and effect.

 

[Sha'irullah]

" Morals and rights are not naturally found within people as it requires an entire society to support them backed by social and governmental norms"

If they were not naturally found in people then they would not be found in human society at all. This is an existence which moves by cause and effect. Humans would not do what is not in their nature to do, that would simply be impossible. Humans are naturally social animals, it is in their nature to form societies, to make laws and to uphold morals and rights.

I think the misunderstanding is on the natural state of humans. Humans are by nature good, they are evil, they are intelligent, they are ignorant and they are also naturally social animals. That is where societal ethic, laws, rights and morality originate from. As if there was no base within the biological make up of humans then there would nothing to cause that effect.

Things do not simply happen in an existence ruled by cause and effect.

My point is not about morals and their occurrence in the collective human species. It is the fact that morals are subjective and the ones we have now are purely subjective and based on society yet taught as a universal truth.
There was a point in history were slavery was just, looting was ethical, killing for simple revenge was normal, violence was glorified as in Rome and beating one's wife was alright with everyone.
Morals do not occur naturally int he state we have them. Perhaps I am not specifying this correctly because I know I often leave out details.
No 2 people on the other side of the world are going to have the same ethics and morals the other have because they are prone to individual acceptance and understanding. Kids without parenting grow up with distorted senses of right and wrong because they are not taught they accepted norms of right and wrong.
Morals have evolved not because of human understanding but because of mankind's ability to socialize and form communities. Making ethics and morals dictated and not inertly found in the state we have now.

Please tell me this makes sense, because I am running out of words to describe my position :thud:

 

[Pappillion001]

I don't see how you have two groups with one based just on what is moral and one based on just rights. As if the one side fighting for equal rights has no concepts of morals. I think that the fight for equal rights for same sex marriage and for religious freedom is very heavily morality based.

Using gay rights as an example. Those in favor don't say it is moral to recognize these rights, but that it is unconstitutional to deny them. The morality of it doesn't really get discussed on their side. Those opposed tend to use the behavior is immoral argument before it even gets to whether they have the right or as the reason they can not have it.

I know it flies against the morals I was brought up with to treat people differently and unfairly and not as equals and with different rights simply because of minor differences. My mother would be aghast if I were to believe that it was right for me to discriminate against those not exactly the same as I. That's not how she raised me. She raised me to treat everyone fairly and to see people for who they are, not what they are, and to stick up for those who need defending. Isn't that what is "moral"?

Both sides usually claim to be defending something of value and both sides will claim all kinds of reasons why they are right and sometimes it isn't black and white.

 

[Pappillion001]

As stated in Revelation 4:11; "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.” Since Jehovah created humans, he has the right to express his will for them and for the Earth, that Jehovah also created. So, both we ourselves and our home belong to our Creator. For these and other reasons, I believe we have a duty to obey our Creator in all things,and he has the right to command us.

Wouldn't it be nice if he would do so clearly, all at once in a manner we all understood?