Either way, I don't think so; my philosophy is that all people have two negative rights; the right to life and the right to own and exchange property and services on a voluntary basis.
Nobody, to my mind, has positive rights as natural rights. Positive rights spring only from agreement.
Morality does not exist objectively in my philosophy aside from a belief in the existence of the two negative natural rights I have outlined, so it is impossible to be morally 'better' or 'worse' than someone by having either fewer or more moral beliefs. So long as those two minimal beliefs are held, everyone has the ability to have whatever moral values they like so long as they do not conflict with the negative rights of others.
Last edited by Aspiringlawstudent; 01-07-2012 at 19:55.
Yes, but my understanding of being "better" is not in the sense having better knowledge, like "Joan is better than Richard at Maths - she knows differentiation, Richard doesn't." I see it more as a perception, ie McDowell rocks.
An immoral person would have a cloudy view of what is the thing to do. Contrasted with moral people who can identify what is the right thing to do in any situation
As an extension of the OP (if you don't mind Snake2493) I'd like to add:
Are people morally better from birth? Are we all born with morals? Or are they learned over time and experience?
I watched a documentary a while ago where a neuroscientist found that there is a gene specific to serial killers. However, not all those who carry the gene have actually gone to commit murder. So how does this affect your argument?
If the answer to this is no then I am as bad as Hitler. I feel comfortable with the idea that this is not the case, so I am going to have to just go ahead and claim that I am a better person than Hitler was.
(Original post by King Kebab)
I agree with you're point about people not seeing their own flaws, but would you not consider yourself a better person than Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler?
That's not for me to judge. And if I was to then I'd not only be incredibly arrogant but also misled as I can compare myself to someone who is dead and someone I've never met - of course I can gauge from what they both did but I still can't simply say 'Oh yeah, I'm better than them'.
I think that circumstances or choices have formed how they think. I think that it takes either great naivety, great lack of opportunity, great comfort or great willpower to be moral. The first 2 might not sound so good. Great comfort would be satisfied by a marriage- not necessarily a literal one but a marriage of minds or emotions.
Great willpower is perhaps easier to achieve if accompanied with great talent like the devil does not make work for busy hands or minds.
'The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing'.
If you're 'nice' but not dynamic, not proactive, then all you might create around you is a bubble that neither harms nor benefits anybody. To be evil sometimes takes a bit of adventurousness so we need the good people to be as adventurous as possible to counteract that. Not adventurous in a selfish way but in seeing/asking what presses other people's buttons to get the most adventure out of them.