What is to prevent any 'abused' group from following the Gay marriage example?

[Elok]

Well loin, it was my impression that this argument WAS about rights as a universal phenomenon. And I meant only that the idea of a metaphysical quantity existing by itself is godlike. Gotta go.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Well loin, it was my impression that this argument WAS about rights as a universal phenomenon.

The natural rights people haven't posted for awhile, and AFAIK they were the only ones asserting rights as universal absolutes.

[Lincoln]

In the United States the 'moral' or natural rights are spelled out in the Declaration of Independance. This is the moral and legal foundation of our laws. That document says that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalianable rights. That provides both a legal and moral absolute for this country at least. The proponants of gay marriage are appealing to that document (and the court decisions that sprang from it over the years) and they have a valid point. There is no need in this context to redifine and argue what is the real source of rights as they have already been defined and they are the basis of law.

The question is where do we go from here since they are basically right. It seems like anarchy or a type of revolution where existing laws can be ignored at will will be the result; however and that my not be a bad thing ( according to Ramo anyway )

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
But where does morality derive from? If we have to decide what "rights" are, how do we determine morality? I think all morality is at least a little theistic, for assuming a world of rights and wrongs existing for their own sake. And if a system of morality doesn't have absolute truth, how can it claim universally existing rights?

The beauties of moral relativism. There isn't a universal "right" and "wrong" that are somehow embedded in the fabric of the universe. I simply have a personal moral code, which may or may not include the requirement that I force it on others.

[Elok]

Question: What is the end purpose of a personal moral code? Is it the preservation of society, or to ensure peaceful coexistence with other human beings, or what?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is the end purpose of a personal moral code?

Who knows?

What is the purpose of life?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Question: What is the end purpose of a personal moral code? Is it the preservation of society, or to ensure peaceful coexistence with other human beings, or what?

HUman beings are naturaly social beings- in "the state of nature" man exists in bands, much like most of our ape relatives. It is a biological imperative then to have creatures that will be able to exist in a band without the group self-destructing. If some notions ae universal, like no to murder (killing within the band), theft, undermining pair bonds (adultery) and such, it is becuase these are just the offenses most likely to bring chaos and destrcution to the band, thus breaking it up and spelling doom for all its members. Most of our moral imperatives are geared towards order-why mandkind has lived most of its hisotry under authorian systems-even if the authoritary was "tradition".

[Elok]

Are you suggesting that morality evolves, as a result of the "immoral" societies self-destructing, or that it is rationally devised in some way? Or some of each, or neither?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Are you suggesting that morality evolves, as a result of the "immoral" societies self-destructing, or that it is rationally devised in some way? Or some of each, or neither?

"soceity" is a brand new invention, a result of the practice of agriculture and the ability of humans to live in groups larger than bands. I guess I would say that it makes sense to specualte that biological pressures make human beings who are more sociable more successful and over time we are getting human beings more accostumed to living in masses well beyond those man in nature ever lived in.

[Elok]

I thought you meant something along those lines. I wasn't speculating biological evolution as such, but that you were saying morality came about by a pseudo-evolutionary system of trial and error that worked on societies rather than individuals.

Like Irian Jaya's proud tradition of cannibalistic tribal revenge-raids. People survived on IJ, but their way of life wasn't exactly well-developed even by stone age standards, and eventually the Indonesian government got sick of it and suppressed the custom altogether.

Or, to cite a more well-known example, the rampant violence and cruelty that kept Western Europe's "Dark Ages" in the dark for a ridiculously long time. Revival of lost arts and a scientific worldview aside, I have to wonder if some of the Renaissance was caused by the Crusades getting European nobles to ruin far-off countries instead of each others' lands.