Is morality objective?

[PocketZeven]

Ok, so what if the donor was unwilling but would survive. Let's say for example they needed an eye, and a kidney, an arm, a leg, and uh... a lung (ok I guess there are 4). So our donor would be left one-eyed, and one kidney'd, and one armed, and one lung'd and one leg'd, but he'd survive. Meanwhile the recipients would also have 1 working one of each of those. So we'd compromise our unwilling donor heavily, but not to the point of death.

Black bag time?

No on all accounts. But if the other 5 were my wife and children. I would either sacrifice myself or indeed kill that other donor.

Edit: if that donor could save my whole family and multiple friends, then get me that black bag quick!

What would you do in the problem I proposed above? Save the one that was supposed to get the 5 organs or choose to save the other 5?

 

[Danoff]

No on all accounts. But if the other 5 were my wife and children. I would either sacrifice myself or indeed kill that other donor.

Edit: if that donor could save my whole family and multiple friends, then get me that black bag quick!

What would you do in the problem I proposed above? Save the one that was supposed to get the 5 organs or choose to save the other 5?

Well, contrary to what some members think, I'm an emotional creature, and my rational mind could be overruled by emotion and result in me committing a crime and justly being incarcerated. So there are scenarios where you could probably get me to do something "bad", knowing full well that I would open myself logically to the use of force. Sacrificing yourself was not an option presented, you have to kill (or maim in the last scenario) the other donor.

I'd like to think that I would do the right thing, and observe the rights of an innocent person in your deeply-emotional scenario, but it's really hard to know how you'll respond emotionally until you're literally in the situation. Usually sentencing takes into account the emotional state of the offender.

Anyway, removing your immediate family from the situation...

Can you explain why you do not think that the 5 lives are worth saving at the cost of 1? Or even the mere cost of disability of the 1?

And how do you square that with harming the 1 financially to compensate 5 financially?

 

[BobK]

Correction I never stated this.

I frigging quoted you on it!

Let's do it again:

Society1: Prisoners have limited, but basic rights
Society 2: women in prison have no rights

Are you denying you said exactly that?

Apparantly you have some experience with these kind of violations? I have no idea whats going on in your mind.

I strongly resent what you're implying here. You've wandered into personal attacks here, like you came very very close to doing with @Dennisch.

You are asking questions I have already answered multiple times. Interesting how you ask me a yes or no question question and you answer my question with "depending on the circumstances". Think about that.

Did it escape you that they were on separate subjects?[/b][/b]

 

[PocketZeven]

Can you explain why you do not think that the 5 lives are worth saving at the cost of 1? Or even the mere cost of disability of the 1?

And how do you square that with harming the 1 financially to compensate 5 financially?

It is immoral for me to kill or harm a person physically. I am actually quite pacifist.

Harming financially is not comparable killing. I know that you described taxes as violently stealing. I do draw a line with killing or physically harming a person for his money.

To me suggesting that the situations are comparable is Not comprehensible. Like I stated earlier, I see tax as a moral obligation for being a citizen of my country.

That doesn’t mean I agree with all taxes by the way. I am fervently against taxing monetary gifts, inherentences and personally believe I am paying too much taxes for my company. Sales tax, is too high. Also not a fan of dividend tax.

I frigging quoted you on it!

Are you serious???

you quoted a hypothetical example, not a personal statement. I have repeatedly explained it that it is the hypothetical view of a member in that particular society and was actually speaking of rights in general (freedom and property) and intentionally avoided the right to not be raped. You however repeatedly suggested that I personally share that view and repeatedly speak of rape etc. I called you out on it. For the 4th or 5th time:

When I say flatearthers say the world is flat. That does not mean I personally think the world is flat.

if I say in society 2 certain people have no right to poop. That does not mean I share that view.
This is not rocket science.

 

[Danoff]

It is immoral for me to kill or harm a person physically. I am actually quite pacifist.

Harming financially is not comparable killing. I know that you described taxes as violently stealing. I do draw a line with killing or physically harming a person for his money.

To me suggesting that the situations are comparable is Not comprehensible. Like I stated earlier, I see tax as a moral obligation for being a citizen of my country.

That doesn’t mean I agree with all taxes by the way. I am fervently against taxing monetary gifts, inherentences and personally believe I am paying too much taxes for my company. Sales tax, is too high. Also not a fan of dividend tax.

https://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-taxevaders20jul20-story.html

We literally come to your home, in the above case lay siege to your home, with guns, and forcibly arrest you if you refuse to pay taxes. How is that not violently stealing?

 

[PocketZeven]

I strongly resent what you're implying here. You've wandered into personal attacks here, like you came very very close to doing with @Dennisch.

that’s interesting you repeatedly keep saying that I personally believe women do not have the right to not be violated (except in more explicit detail) Like a broken record. You don’t have a lot of self reflection do you? Correct, I did call you out, however I did not personally attack Dennisch.

https://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-taxevaders20jul20-story.html

We literally come to your home, in the above case lay siege to your home, with guns, and forcibly arrest you if you refuse to pay taxes. How is that not violently stealing?

Hardly stealing. The government is not breaking and entering and forcefully take their property. They however broke the law. The siege and guns are for resisting arrest. It is also immoral to willfully break the law. These people are kind of eccentric. They view the US government as pure communism and totalitarian. They are kind of out there.

edit:
Do you think tax-evasion is honorable? Or even honorably motivated?

 

[Danoff]

Hardly stealing. The government is not breaking and entering and forcefully take their property. They however broke the law. The siege and guns are for resisting arrest.

This is a bit of a cop-out don't you think? I'm sure the officers that arrested them were no longer invited the moment they whipped out the cuffs. Also I'm pretty sure that resisting arrest had a little something to do with income tax.

Forcible theft. You either pay up, you're arrested, and if you resist arrest, we come on your property, lay siege with guns, and yes you could get shot defending yourself.

It is also immoral to willfully break the law.

Aaaaaaaaallll laws?????

These people are kind of eccentric.

Maybe from your particular perspective.

Do you think tax-evasion is honorable? Or even honorably motivated?

I'm not sure what "honorable" means here. And given we've had so much trouble with words, I think I want to nail that down before answering this.

 

[Dotini]

"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

— Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy, 1789

We staged our extremely violent revolution from the despised British King and Parliament on the basis of no taxation without representation. We still have taxes, but at least our Democratic and Republican Representatives enacted them into law. So to backtrack on our fundamental bargain is at least pusillanimous if not dishonorable, criminal or even anarchic or traitorous.

 

[PocketZeven]

Maybe from your particular perspective.

I'm not sure what "honorable" means here. And given we've had so much trouble with words, I think I want to nail that down before answering this.

You think it is within reason to call the US government marxist or communist, just because they dont want to pay Taxes?

I will try in other words. Is a law that requires people to pay income tax a violation of human rights?

 

[Famine]

Why do I need to have empathy with people who would mutilate their children's genitals, rape women, immolate women who would refuse rape, enslave populations, torture and execute homosexuals and ethnic groups other than their own, because they believe that these people do not have rights? How does it help with the concept that these are all objectively immoral acts to attempt to identify with these evil people?

 

[Imari]

Why do I need to have empathy with people who would mutilate their children's genitals, rape women, immolate women who would refuse rape, enslave populations, torture and execute homosexuals and ethnic groups other than their own, because they believe that these people do not have rights? How does it help with the concept that these are all objectively immoral acts to attempt to identify with these evil people?

Personally, I find it slightly disturbing that someone would empathise with the people who commit these awful acts yet apparently have less empathy for the victims. But apparently violating any law is immoral, so clearly the children are immoral for possessing genitalia.

 

[Famine]

Personally, I find it slightly disturbing that someone would empathise with the people who commit these awful acts yet apparently have less empathy for the victims. But apparently violating any law is immoral, so clearly the children are immoral for possessing genitalia.

And apparently it's immoral for a 12-year old girl to refuse to be raped by the 50-year old man her parents sold her to as a bride, or escape her captor to prevent her death.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why do I need to have empathy with people who would mutilate their children's genitals, rape women, immolate women who would refuse rape, enslave populations, torture and execute homosexuals and ethnic groups other than their own, because they believe that these people do not have rights? How does it help with the concept that these are all objectively immoral acts to attempt to identify with these evil people?

You dont need to, but to understand the theory I am speaking of. Empathy does not mean you have to agree with others views, but to understand their frame of reference. You refuse to do so, so I guess it will be impossible to explain why how you view human rights, is not shared everywhere.

That said, do you think your nation (society1) has the moral obligation to interfere in other countries, where human rights (society2) are violated?

Why keep going into that territory? It is completely unnecessary and not relevant to the theory. You keep bringing up torure, immolation, enslave etc.the important thing to take away is that some societies dont always recognise the rights you see as universal. Like how you were probably born and raised with certain norms and values that recognise the rights you always have known. People from other societies have different norms and values.

edit:

Personally, I find it slightly disturbing that someone would empathise with the people who commit these awful acts yet apparently have less empathy for the victims. But apparently violating any law is immoral, so clearly the children are immoral for possessing genitalia.

And apparently it's immoral for a 12-year old girl to refuse to be raped by the 50-year old man her parents sold her to as a bride, or escape her captor to prevent her death.

That is dependant on which "hat"(perspective) you are speaking.

To reitterate. I am speaking of a theory and myself do not share the norms and values of other societies. You and I think these acts are completely immoral. The people wihtin that society do not have the same norms and values.

 

[Danoff]

We still have taxes, but at least our Democratic and Republican Representatives enacted them into law.

That kind of thinking is in the past. These days we toy with currency, credit, and interest rates. Who cares if we don't have the taxes to cover our expenses, and the people won't vote for them... we'll spend anyway and let unelected members of the executive branch work out how to cover the balance.

You think it is within reason to call the US government marxist or communist, just because they dont want to pay Taxes?

I'm not sure what this has to do with honorable. This is why I wanted to understand what you meant by that, because now you've shifted from appealing to honor to appealing to reason. I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at here.

I will try in other words. Is a law that requires people to pay income tax a violation of human rights?

Yes, property rights.

That is solely dependant on which "hat"(perspective) you are speaking.

Not really no. And that's the kind of statement that should trigger you to step back and think "wait what am I really saying here".

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not sure what this has to do with honorable. This is why I wanted to understand what you meant by that, because now you've shifted from appealing to honor to appealing to reason. I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at here.

Yes, property rights.

Not really not. And that's the kind of statement that should trigger you to step back and think "wait what am I really saying here".

I retracted the question and replaced it with another. Sorry for the confusion, I presumed you did not understand the question. What is your answer to the second question though?

In your view ,does the constitution supersede human property rights?

Why do you guys keep suggesting that only because I can shift perspective, I must also share these views? That is either being ignorant or pretending to be. If I theorize that a certain serial killer thinks that killing certain people is doing gods work, that doesnt mean that is a statement that reflects my personal views.

 

[Danoff]

In your view ,does the constitution supersede human property rights?

Nope. Nothing does.

Why do you guys keep suggesting that only because I can shift perspective, I must also share these views? That is either being ignorant or pretending to be. If I theorize that a certain serial killer thinks that killing certain people is doing gods work, that doesnt mean that is a statement that reflects my personal views.

Well it doesn't sound like that's what you're saying. I think we all understand that someone can commit a heinous act and think that it is just and good in their own perspective. The problem comes in when you insinuate that this somehow affects the morality of their act. Even if they think they're doing the lord's work, it's still horrible. It's almost more horrible that they think it's good. You can consider a horrible act from the perspective of the offender without suggesting that it's something other than what it is.

I adhere to human rights precisely because of the logical significance between someone who harms the people around them and someone who treats the people around them according to their own actions.

 

[Imari]

You dont need to, but to understand the theory I am speaking of. Empathy does not mean you have to agree with others views, but to understand their frame of reference. You refuse to do so, so I guess it will be impossible to explain why how you view human rights, is not shared everywhere.

Honestly, I see limited value in empathising with the values of rapists and torturers. Could you explain what you think the value is in understanding why these people think it's OK to rape and torture? Personally, I think that if I've come to a robust and reasoned conclusion that rape and torture is a violation of human rights, it's really of little consequence what justification they choose to use for their actions. I mean, it's not like I'm going to be swayed to their cause and suddenly start thinking that actually child slavery is fine and not an abuse of human rights.

To reitterate. I am speaking of a theory and myself do not share the norms and values of other societies. You and I think these acts are completely immoral. The people wihtin that society do not have the same norms and values.

I'm not so sure. I rather think the victims of these societies would be quite happy to share any norms and values that didn't result in them being victims. I'd imagine they'd be very keen indeed. The Uighurs seem quite keen not to share the "norms and values" that leads China to locking them up in concentration camps, for example. There are people out there that enjoy being tortured, but they're rare and typically they only do it under strict conditions and controls.

What you're talking about are the norms and values of those who set the laws of a society, who may be a powerful minority and may not be representative of the general sentiment within that society. But I guess we've already established that for you a law is a moral imperative, and so regardless of how horrific a law might be following it is always a moral action.

 

[BobK]

Are you serious???

you quoted a hypothetical example, not a personal statement. I have repeatedly explained it that it is the hypothetical view of a member in that particular society and was actually speaking of rights in general (freedom and property) and intentionally avoided the right to not be raped. You however repeatedly suggested that I personally share that view and repeatedly speak of rape etc. I called you out on it. For the 4th or 5th time:

Given that such a society actually exists, as has been pointed out to you, it is not a hypothetical example; it's a real-world example.

that’s interesting you repeatedly keep saying that I personally believe women do not have the right to not be violated (except in more explicit detail) Like a broken record.

And you keep repeating, like a broken record, that rights are what a society deems them to be. You're getting upset and launching wild accusations because you refuse to consider what the logical consequences of what you say lead to.

My position is, and always has been, that all women anywhere have a universal right not to be raped.

You say that rights are what a society decree them to be. The logical consequence of that is if the society in question does not grant female prisoners the right not to be raped, then those women do not have that right.

If you feel those women do in fact have the right not to be raped, then you're contradicting your contention that rights are what a society says they are.

You don’t have a lot of self reflection do you?

Why are you asking that, and what exactly do you mean by it? What leads you to ask? Is this yet another personal attack?

Correct, I did call you out, however I did not personally attack Dennisch.

I never said you'd attacked @Dennisch. I said you'd come very very close to it. Some would say it was in fact an attack, and a good case could be made for it. It may not have been your intention, but it was certainly the effect of what you said.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope. Nothing does.



Well it doesn't sound like that's what you're saying. I think we all understand that someone can commit a heinous act and think that it is just and good in their own perspective. The problem comes in when you insinuate that this somehow affects the morality of their act. Even if they think they're doing the lord's work, it's still horrible. It's almost more horrible that they think it's good. You can consider a horrible act from the perspective of the offender without suggesting that it's something other than what it is.

I adhere to human rights precisely because of the logical significance between someone who harms the people around them and someone who treats the people around them according to their own actions.

I guess you are an outlier concerning the importance of the constitution.

I am saying that, I have adressed this everytime that these limited rights from another perspective (society 2 or 3) are not my own. Some are purposefully ignoring it and presenting it as my own perspective.

 

[PocketZeven]

Honestly, I see limited value in empathising with the values of rapists and torturers. Could you explain what you think the value is in understanding why these people think it's OK to rape and torture? Personally, I think that if I've come to a robust and reasoned conclusion that rape and torture is a violation of human rights, it's really of little consequence what justification they choose to use for their actions. I mean, it's not like I'm going to be swayed to their cause and suddenly start thinking that actually child slavery is fine and not an abuse of human rights.



I'm not so sure. I rather think the victims of these societies would be quite happy to share any norms and values that didn't result in them being victims. I'd imagine they'd be very keen indeed. The Uighurs seem quite keen not to share the "norms and values" that leads China to locking them up in concentration camps, for example. There are people out there that enjoy being tortured, but they're rare and typically they only do it under strict conditions and controls.

What you're talking about are the norms and values of those who set the laws of a society, who may be a powerful minority and may not be representative of the general sentiment within that society. But I guess we've already established that for you a law is a moral imperative, and so regardless of how horrific a law might be following it is always a moral action.

It isnt about value. I was pointing out the existence of another perspective. We were speaking about the theory that rights are not universal. What we perceive as a natural right, is not a right from another perspective. I am not condoning or justifying it in any way, just pointing out the different perspective. In our view these people are willingly violating others rights. However these people, might not be aware that they have a certain right, let alon violating them.

edit:
I am not referring to laws. Laws are rules that can grant or take away rights. The right still exists wether or not the law recognises it. And now you are incorrectly suggesting that I think a horrific law can be moral. That is not what I have been saying at all, a horrific law from my perspective is always immoral from my perspective.

I never said you'd attacked @Dennisch. I said you'd come very very close to it. Some would say it was in fact an attack, and a good case could be made for it. It may not have been your intention, but it was certainly the effect of what you said.

It either was or it wasnt. Who is some though?

My position is, and always has been, that all women anywhere have a universal right not to be raped.

You say that rights are what a society decree them to be. The logical consequence of that is if the society in question does not grant female prisoners the right not to be raped, then those women do not have that right.

If you feel those women do in fact have the right not to be raped, then you're contradicting your contention that rights are what a society says they are.

I have also repeatedly said I think women have the right to not be raped.

Not sure decree is the correct word. In other words the logical consequence is that rights (we recognise) are violated and not seen as immoral or unethical within that society.
Like how some of you perceive incometax as immoral and theft and others dont.

 

[Imari]

It isnt about value. I was pointing out the existence of another perspective. We were speaking about the theory that rights are not universal. What we perceive as a natural right, is not a right from another perspective. I am not condoning or justifying it in any way, just pointing out the different perspective. In our view these people are willingly violating others rights. However these people, might not be aware that they have a certain right, let alon violating them.

And you still don't seem to understand that the whole point of natural rights is that it's a logical system that functions regardless of perspective.

We know that there are other communities and societies that choose not to recognise rights, either in law or otherwise. Sometimes that's our own societies in the past. Sometimes, like in the example of taxes, that's our societies right now. That different societies are different is not exactly a fresh hot take; it's already right there in the name.

But the rights do not change between societies, even though the recognition of them does. So what do you find useful or worthwhile in empathising with societies that you say you find to be immoral?

edit:
I am not referring to laws. Laws are rules that can grant or take away rights.

Be careful with your words. A law does not take away a right, nor does it grant it. It can recognise it or fail to do so, but you always have a right regardless of what the law says.

The right still exists wether or not the law recognises it.

See?

And now you are incorrectly suggesting that I think a horrific law can be moral. That is not what I have been saying at all, a horrific law from my perspective is always immoral from my perspective.

Again, you might want to be more careful with your words then. Because you literally said it's immoral to break the law, without any qualifications.

It is also immoral to willfully break the law.

Would you like to amend the above statement to something that you feel more accurately describes your position?

 

[Famine]

You dont need to, but to understand the theory I am speaking of. Empathy does not mean you have to agree with others views, but to understand their frame of reference. You refuse to do so, so I guess it will be impossible to explain why how you view human rights, is not shared everywhere.

I know why and how other people view human rights - most other people don't share my point of view. I don't need to empathise with them to understand it. Empathy requires you to identify with someone.

There is no common ground between how I view a girl's rights and how someone who believes she has no right to intact genitalia views them. I can entirely understand why they have that point of view, but it is absolutely wrong for them to do so, and it is impossible for me to empathise with them in their point of view in any way. I cannot identify with someone who would think it's fine to hold a girl down and, without anaesthesia, shred her labia and clitoris with a razor blade - nor would I suggest that they're right to think that because they grew up in a society that thinks that.

It's also not possible for me to empathise with people who think they have the right to hold slaves, to rape 12-year old children, to immolate their underage 'wife' if she doesn't put out, to stone homosexuals to death or push them off tall buildings, to imprison three generations of someone's family without trial for non-compliance with state dogma and starve, work, and rape them to death, or to extermine people they hold as genetically inferior to preserve the purity of their race. Nor with people who think these things are not a breach of rights because the law permits or permitted (or required) them. Nor with people who think that it's immoral to break those laws.

I know how they got from being a normal human to carrying out and condoning the most revolting of acts against other humans, but that doesn't require me to, nor can I, empathise with them. I also know how you got to preferring to "save" five FGM practitioners tied to a railway line at the expense of - or rather by the murder of - one primary school teacher, and I can't empathise with that either.

 

[BobK]

It either was or it wasnt. Who is some though?

Some[ would include anyone who thinks it crossed the line to an attack. That's patently obvious to rational folk.

I have also repeatedly said I think women have the right to not be raped.

So is the right not to be raped a universal right held by all women then? And not determined by the society in which they live?

Not sure decree is the correct word.

Okay, make that "determine". Or "grant". Or "award". or "establish". Pick any word you like, and I could list more, byt at this point I believe you're arguing for the sake of argument. As you were when questioning "who is some".

In other words the logical consequence is that rights (we recognise) are violated and not seen as immoral or unethical within that society.
Like how some of you perceive incometax as immoral and theft and others dont.

If a society does not acknowledge (add "acknowledge" to the list of alternatives to "decree" above if you like) cannot violate a right of a member of that society if that society has decided (add that word too) the member does not have the right. That is the necessary consequence of your position that societies determine what are rights and what are not. My position is that the member of that other society has the right regardless of what their society says, and their society is violating the right.

 

[PocketZeven]

I know why and how other people view human rights - most other people don't share my point of view. I don't need to empathise with them to understand it. Empathy requires you to identify with someone.

There is no common ground between how I view a girl's rights and how someone who believes she has no right to intact genitalia views them. I can entirely understand why they have that point of view, but it is absolutely wrong for them to do so, and it is impossible for me to empathise with them in their point of view in any way. I cannot identify with someone who would think it's fine to hold a girl down and, without anaesthesia, shred her labia and clitoris with a razor blade - nor would I suggest that they're right to think that because they grew up in a society that thinks that.

It's also not possible for me to empathise with people who think they have the right to hold slaves, to rape 12-year old children, to immolate their underage 'wife' if she doesn't put out, to stone homosexuals to death or push them off tall buildings, to imprison three generations of someone's family without trial for non-compliance with state dogma and starve, work, and rape them to death, or to extermine people they hold as genetically inferior to preserve the purity of their race. Nor with people who think these things are not a breach of rights because the law permits or permitted (or required) them. Nor with people who think that it's immoral to break those laws.

I know how they got from being a normal human to carrying out and condoning the most revolting of acts against other humans, but that doesn't require me to, nor can I, empathise with them. I also know how you got to preferring to "save" five FGM practitioners tied to a railway line at the expense of - or rather by the murder of - one primary school teacher, and I can't empathise with that either.

Perhaps empathise doesnt mean you need to agree with those views. But I understand how you do not. However I am not sure why you are going into so much detail.

I was thinking about the subject earlier and perhaps a less repugnant example then violence/mutalation/rape is how "black pete" is viewed in Netherlands. Some could say it is violating the right to not be discriminated against:

However most in the netherlands dont see it that way. what comes in your mind when you see this picture?

 

[Danoff]

Some could say it is violating the right to not be discriminated against:

No such right exists. To understand that you'd need to understand where rights come from.

 

[PocketZeven]

No such right exists. To understand that you'd need to understand where rights come from.

Not according to your definition?
Freedom from discrimiation perhaps? A lot of sources recognise it as a human right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_from_discrimination
http://careaboutrights.scottishhumanrights.com/section1-page15.html
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-14-protection-discrimination

If I am using the wrong sources, could you point me in the right direction?

 

[Famine]

Perhaps empathise doesnt mean you need to agree with those views.

It doesn't. It means you need to be able to identify with the people holding them.

However I am not sure why you are going into so much detail.

Detail is important.

I was thinking about the subject earlier and perhaps a less repugnant example then violence/mutalation/rape

... why do we need to shy away from difficult concepts?

is how "black pete" is viewed in Netherlands. Some could say it is violating the right to not be discriminated against:

That's not a right.

However most in the netherlands dont see it that way. what comes in your mind when you see this picture?

It's some people apparently celebrating according to their traditions around a festival adopted by a religion. They look like they're enjoying themselves.

 

[Rallywagon]

Not according to your definition?
Freedom from discrimiation perhaps? A lot of sources recognise it as a human right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_from_discrimination
http://careaboutrights.scottishhumanrights.com/section1-page15.html
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-14-protection-discrimination

If I am using the wrong sources, could you point me in the right direction?

People get discriminated upon all the time. Kids get discriminated on for their age and cant buy quite a few products. Non IT types will get discriminated on when they try to apply for an IT based job. Lots of examples where discrimination isnt violating rights are out there. Quite frankly, as abhorrent as it is, being racist alone doesn't violate anyone's rights either. Acting on that may infringe on someone's rights. Just as in some cases discrimination may be used to justify infringing someone's rights, however to not be discriminated upon as a whole is not a right.

 

[Dotini]

This thread does not offer a poll. But if it did, I would vote that morality is subjective.

 

[Imari]

Freedom from discrimiation perhaps? A lot of sources recognise it as a human right.

One might argue that liberty is a more fundamental right, as it's usually second on any list directly after the right to life. One should therefore be free to discriminate as one chooses as long as one doesn't violate someone else's rights, as you are at liberty to behave as you wish. As an example, if you're selling something, your freedom to discriminate between the various people who want to buy your good or service is necessary to making the transaction work.

If people want to choose to discriminate based on race or age or sex or anything else that would seem stupid and unfair then that might make them an :censored:hole, but it doesn't in and of itself violate any rights. People do have the right to be :censored:holes. Now, if you're choosing to enslave people because they're, say, black, that would violate some rights, but the discrimination isn't really the major problem in that scenario.