Atoms exist. Whether someone believes they exist or not is their own problem; just because someone shoves their head in the sand, the world doesn't stop turning. As we cannot see atoms, let's bypass atoms and presume you said electrons. Electrons definitely exist as we can see the trail they make (or something like that, I'm no physicist). There is concrete evidence for their existence, and they have every place in the natural world.(Original post by TorpidPhil)
Moral rights and thereby obligations exist independently from us, they're not something we made up. They existed before us, they'll do so after we've gone. Also, you cannot claim that atoms are inherently truthful when beliefs about them vary from country to country. 2 is always 2, but two people in two separate countries having entirely different beliefs about meta-physics is enough for me to say that ontology cannot be truly defined a priori.
Rights, however, do not. They're made up. Does this make them worth less than electrons? Of course not. But because they're merely a concept, they can be shaped. They're malleable. And they can be added and removed from any given society at any given moment, which doesn't make them as truthful as you initially made them out to be. After all, it's not a right if you can have it taken away is it? Someone else bestowed that right upon you as if it was their gift to give, but who decided that they have the right to give out the rights? And why is it theirs to give, why didn't humanity as whole sit down and say "Everyone should have rights x, y & z, that's fair right?"?
Rights aren't natural nor are they truthful, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to live as justly as humanly possible.
where do you suppose this 'right' of free speech came from? watch
- 20-01-2015 16:45
- 25-01-2015 19:14
I think it comes from the other person's values and moral and finishes soon you start offending the other person.
- 28-01-2015 14:29
It is not true that speech is not harmful; those versed in rhetoric have been able to stir centuries of dissent throuh their brilliant speeches, there is also the disposition to act, in certain cultures thinking something is automatically considered intention, which most of us would dismiss.