U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-04-2018, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
15,227 posts, read 11,747,780 times
Reputation: 4852

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
Why would the autocratic powers that dictate those rules not be entitled to their own right to choose what is right and wrong.

Perhaps in their eyes they are doing what is right for the best interests of the public.
They can for themselves, but only the individual can choose what is right for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-04-2018, 02:06 PM
 
1,152 posts, read 655,880 times
Reputation: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90 View Post
They can for themselves, but only the individual can choose what is right for themselves.
What you've done above is define your standard for what is right and wrong, which is fine. However, when presented with a number of real world situations, you set up exclusions to that standard to avoid contradictory or unacceptable outcomes. For example.

1. People have the right to choose what is right and wrong for themsleves.
2. BUT those rights only apply to the extent that they don't impinge on the similar rights of others.

As soon as you put exclusions like this on your definition, you end up with a non-relativistic standard of morality that needs defending. That's because people with different moral views may claim that point 2 is wrong.

This puts you back at square one, where you need to explain why it is your values are superior or inferior to those of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2018, 06:25 PM
 
1,773 posts, read 548,729 times
Reputation: 1014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
The world as a whole, without cultural boundaries into account, would you say is conservative or liberal?


It is neither. It is just careless. Taking into consideration a population of 7.6 billion people that is increasing daily, and the mindless destruction being wreaked on earth during humanity's march to self-imposed extinction, I would say that conservatism and liberalism are irrelevant and ridiculous. I would say that the world as a whole, speaking of humanity only, is extremely selfish and careless in a way that overwhelms and makes light of either conservatism or liberalism regardless of all cultural boundaries. When a species is blindly working towards causing its own extinction and the extinction of all other living things on earth why would anybody care about if that species is conservative or liberal about it?


.
That's actually one of the most poignant and accurate depictions I've come across in a while. In many ways, the current dilemma humanity faces mirrors what is seen in Game of Thrones. Does ideology really matter when the source of humanity's livelihood is getting eradicated every minute? When dead things come walking in the night, who gets to sit on the iron throne becomes irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2018, 02:41 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
1,718 posts, read 535,168 times
Reputation: 3245
The world is exactly as liberal or conservative as it needs to be, and if it drifts away from that ideal, it self-corrects. It's like asking of a natural habitat has too many predators or too many prey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2018, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
15,227 posts, read 11,747,780 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
What you've done above is define your standard for what is right and wrong, which is fine. However, when presented with a number of real world situations, you set up exclusions to that standard to avoid contradictory or unacceptable outcomes. For example.

1. People have the right to choose what is right and wrong for themsleves.
2. BUT those rights only apply to the extent that they don't impinge on the similar rights of others.

As soon as you put exclusions like this on your definition, you end up with a non-relativistic standard of morality that needs defending. That's because people with different moral views may claim that point 2 is wrong.

This puts you back at square one, where you need to explain why it is your values are superior or inferior to those of others.
Inferior cultures are ones that put someone's beliefs, before another's rights -traditional thinking principles seem to do this quite often.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2018, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
19,915 posts, read 24,642,819 times
Reputation: 7787
I think the question needs to be separated between economic issues, and the more broad issue of "values".


I'd say that in terms of economics issues, a strong majority of the world's population is either poor or struggling, and so this would likely make things tilt quite strongly in the direction of progressivism and leftism.


As for "values", most of the world is fairly traditionalist and even religious, which means that for the measure humanity can be said to be predominantly conservative with a sizeable liberal minority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2018, 04:51 PM
 
1,152 posts, read 655,880 times
Reputation: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90 View Post
Inferior cultures are ones that put someone's beliefs, before another's rights -traditional thinking principles seem to do this quite often.
This simply reiterates what you said earlier, in a narrower context, and doesn't address its problems.

What if someone has different moral views to your own and disagrees with the standards of right and wrong described in this post. For example, he might have a different view of what rights are important and relevant and to whom they're relevant.

This is the square one problem that you returned to in your previous post. How do you know who is right in this situation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2018, 08:53 PM
 
5,937 posts, read 10,053,330 times
Reputation: 3002
There is no other choice yet to use these concepts of identity to fully determine what is fitting on the political spectrum. Impossible to exclude. Every country is unique technically with bright optimism. Immigration is what I think of superficial or deep wise at first call of priority. If governing affiliates says yes to authorize refugees or legal settlers than this system is embracing natural inclinations at the Progressive Liberal arena. According to that rational premise, then our own Earth is gravitating surprisingly on the conservative expression mode wins. However, not overwhelming landscape victory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
15,227 posts, read 11,747,780 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
This simply reiterates what you said earlier, in a narrower context, and doesn't address its problems.

What if someone has different moral views to your own and disagrees with the standards of right and wrong described in this post. For example, he might have a different view of what rights are important and relevant and to whom they're relevant.

This is the square one problem that you returned to in your previous post. How do you know who is right in this situation?
This happens all the time within societies. It doesn't matter who is right, as long as a belief isn't being imposed over a right.

Inferior cultures are ones that put belief ahead of rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 01:40 PM
 
1,152 posts, read 655,880 times
Reputation: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90 View Post
This happens all the time within societies. It doesn't matter who is right, as long as a belief isn't being imposed over a right.

Inferior cultures are ones that put belief ahead of rights.
It definitely does matter who is right. If you happen to be wrong, your ethical world view (in blue) becomes irrelevant.

I don't think you've quite understood the subject matter though, so we can try another approach to the question.

Your proposition: "The practice of certain beliefs should never impinge upon the rights of others."
Counter-proposition: "The freedom to practice certain beliefs is also an inalienable right. Where it conflicts with the rights of others, it may take precedence depending on the circumstances."

Here, someone has a fundamental disagreement with your philosophical world view.

Who is correct out of the two? By what standard do we judge one proposition to be more acceptable than the other?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top