That's odd...I thought we were a nation of laws?

[Brian37]

---

Bullshit. Slavery was moral at one point. The part you are not getting is we are NOT being inconsistent in saying it is still wrong. Times change and the goal should be to do the least harm, not go with a majority.

Point of view is what what we are pointing out. Moral to one may not be moral to another, but that does not mean just because you think something is moral means the one being harmed by it thinks it is.

WE are not being hypocrites or inconsistent. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate has always existed, it is still up to us what we choose.

Just because history has, or just because we can, does not mean we always should. 

Morality IS subjective, and I am damned glad there have been those in the past who have challenged social norms so that we ended slavery and segregation and that women could vote, and that LGBT have more rights today.

Your problem, and I see this with every religion worldwide, bar none, is that humans far to often attach their local religions, traditions and social norms as being that source of morality. 

I think MOST HUMANS are very capable of empathy and compassion, and that is where more of the world needs to be. Where I disagree is where they think morality is coming from. It is not coming from above, or from a holy person or a holy writing, but has always been in us.  <---None of that is saying to value dictators or lawlessness. 

Morality comes from the same place these elephants did what they did. 





And why this cat did what it did.

---

Yes, in a view of subjective morality, you are saying morality and therefore rights are based on the subject (or perhaps a group of subjects).   Therefore you cannot claim that something is immoral or more or less moral apart from that foundation.  You cannot compare and say that something is more or less moral for another person or culture.  Objective rights outside of the person or culture do not exist.  It doesn't even make sense to say that they don't deserve these rights, under moral subjectivity.  And merely having compassion or empathy doesn't work either in regards to morality and rights.

Yep, I need a fictional sky wizard to magically hand me down my goodness right?

No I do not.

[RoadRunner79]

Well context is important to a conversation.  Sometimes I make the mistake of assuming that what someone is saying has to do with what is being talked about.

More like sometimes you like to put words into other people’s mouths.

What I said directly related to what I responded to. Which was that you’ve never heard the argument that illegal immigrants don’t deserve rights. I honestly don’t think you’ve been walking around blind and deaf all this time. I just think you’re being dishonest about having never heard such an argument. But that’s just my opinion.

A false opinion at that... if you care!

---

Yes, in a view of subjective morality, you are saying morality and therefore rights are based on the subject (or perhaps a group of subjects).   Therefore you cannot claim that something is immoral or more or less moral apart from that foundation.  You cannot compare and say that something is more or less moral for another person or culture.  Objective rights outside of the person or culture do not exist.  It doesn't even make sense to say that they don't deserve these rights, under moral subjectivity.  And merely having compassion or empathy doesn't work either in regards to morality and rights.

Yep, I need a fictional sky wizard to magically hand me down my goodness right?

No I do not.

I agree, that you don't need to be religious to know that there is real right and wrong, if that is what you are saying.   And I didn't say anything about God, just that under a view that morality is subjective, that it doesn't make sense to talk about human rights; outside of what the subject or culture gives.   That moral subjectivitists are often inconsistent in this.   Perhaps you are ok with this.

[The Industrial Atheist]

I'm not trying to be a douche, but that was sort of the argument for holding people indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graibh. Of course, that wasn't enough so they had to go with the enemy combatants thing.

It seems to me, that this is another specialty matter all together (enemy combatants).    In any case, I believe it's a stretch to go from this to saying that those outside of the U.S. don't deserve basic human rights.

If it is, I'm not sure why. But in any event, the very same argument you mentioned, has been used.

[Angrboda]

I don't think he gets out at all.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...amendment/

Do you know this person, or did you cherry pick the internet; to find one example that suits your purposes?  
Again, I would say, I don't know anyone who would agree that "people not born in the US don't deserve those 'god given' rights"

I can't answer how Min did his research, but I understand that such views are common among Dominionists, and to a lesser extent a significant section of evangelicals.

[Rev. Rye]

Make no mistake, the rule of law only matters as much as the people in power want it to.