Forced marriage parents face jail under new laws in the UK - Polidicks

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254950]But people's actions and how they treat others is influenced by their cultural background. Some people might enjoy causing pain to others, which would lead them to believe they are acting in a morally acceptable way.[/QUOTE] And that makes it acceptable?

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254863]Ok, we have some agreement. I was wrong to say that human rights are a strictly liberal idea. I should have said that human rights are generally an 'enlightened' (aka coming from the Enlightenment period) idea. If you believe that human are fundamentally, essentially the same then everyone would agree to inalienable human rights. The point I was trying to put across was that if you do not consider all humans equal then you will disagree with human rights (since you disagree that all humans are equal). Fascists believe in an infallible leader who can take decisions on other peoples behalf because he is morally or intellectually superior. If you believe humans and their nature are imperfect like Conservatives then you would say the wiser need to guide the less wise. In these cases you would say that some people are superior to others due to this human rights due to fundamental equality need not apply. I hope that makes some modicum of sense. (It is 3am here so I might not be very coherent).[/QUOTE] Pfft, it's 4AM here. Essentially all humans are the same, but humans are born in different places with different environments and people, culture and so forth, so no human can be the same, but on the very basic undetailed level, they are. But I shouldn't dvelve too much into this as this is my point of view which completely contradicts the point of this argument. With a very black and white view your argument makes sense, but I don't see a problem with believing in human equality and believe that humans need leaders. A leader is still just a human and can make human mistakes, he does not need to be more superior to others, but he knows things they don't and shows a greater understanding of peoples differences making him a better fit person for the role than Paul who has other things he excels in compared to others. Giving someone a position with more responsibility does not make the person more superior, it does however point out his difference. Like I said earlier people are essentially equal, but as they grow they become different in the details, if you treat them equally you are treating them differently. You can't treat a tall fat man the same way you treat a short thin woman. In short. Everyone are equal, but some are better fit for certain positions. A country would fall to the ground if it lost a leader, but likewise it would also fall if it lost accountants, plumbers, electricians, septic cleaners, truck drivers, etc etc. They are all equally important, what the leader do is just as important as what the plumber do.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36254961]And that makes it acceptable?[/QUOTE] In their society/culture/country, yes. In our society/culture/country, no. This is the point. [QUOTE=dgg;36254980]Pfft, it's 4AM here. Essentially all humans are the same, but humans are born in different places with different environments and people, culture and so forth, so no human can be the same, but on the very basic undetailed level, they are. But I shouldn't dvelve too much into this as this is my point of view which completely contradicts the point of this argument. With a very black and white view your argument makes sense, but I don't see a problem with believing in human equality and believe that humans need leaders. A leader is still just a human and can make human mistakes, he does not need to be more superior to others, but he knows things they don't and shows a greater understanding of peoples differences making him a better fit person for the role than Paul who has other things he excels in compared to others. Giving someone a position with more responsibility does not make the person more superior, it does however point out his difference. Like I said earlier people are essentially equal, but as they grow they become different in the details, if you treat them equally you are treating them differently. You can't treat a tall fat man the same way you treat a short thin woman. In short. Everyone are equal, but some are better fit for certain positions. A country would fall to the ground if it lost a leader, but likewise it would also fall if it lost accountants, plumbers, electricians, septic cleaners, truck drivers, etc etc. They are all equally important, what the leader do is just as important as what the plumber do.[/QUOTE] Some ideologies and some cultures believe that on the 'very basic undetailed level' humans are not the same. This is what I was trying to say but failed to do. If you believe women are inherently superior in every way to men then you do not believe that humans are fundamentally the same (sex is just an example there are other differences). If this is the case then you are not going to agree to universal human rights since you are superior in every way and you will see others like animals rather than humans. Apart from that, I agree there is no problem with believing in human equality and there being a need for leaders. Everyone has different faculties and thus have different roles in society but I agree that all humans are essentially equal. (You are remarkably well thought-out for that this early in the morning I must say).

[QUOTE=Melkor;36254961]And that makes it acceptable?[/QUOTE] If the society the people are in thinks of it as acceptable then it is. What is right and wrong is dictated by people, not some universal law made by the cosmos. Saying otherwise means that you are argumenting with your heart and not reason.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254950]Some people might enjoy causing pain to others, which would lead them to believe they are acting in a morally acceptable way.[/QUOTE] And those people would be guess what wrong Just because they're ignorant or have a different opinion doesn't mean they're not wrong. They're not acting out of malice, and they don't [I]know[/I] it's wrong, but it's still wrong. Which is why you stop them and tell them it's wrong. You don't just go "well he doesn't know he's a jerkass who's ruining peoples' lives so I'm not going to tell him, that would be rude"

[QUOTE=Melkor;36254961]And that makes it acceptable?[/QUOTE] No, that's my point. Solely relying on things that vary from person to person to guide your actions isn't a good idea. [QUOTE=Melkor;36254707]I told you to put your head in the sand because you refused to argue against my reasoning. Instead retreating back to your sheltered view point of the world, and calling me a Neo Nazi. It's not my fault you equate debate with fascism.[/QUOTE] I made legitimate points, you ignored them. I don't have any sheltered view of the world, people can have different opinions, it's you who can't seem to grasp that. I didn't call you a Neo-Nazi, I merely suggested that you have the same unwillingness to re-evaluate your own views as they do. Where is the fascism here? You haven't made a single attempt to defend your argument instead dismissing my critiques and proceeding to agree with yourself.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254950]But people's actions and how they treat others is influenced by their cultural background. Some people might enjoy causing pain to others, which would lead them to believe they are acting in a morally acceptable way.[/QUOTE] You have to remember that culture has very little to do with the point I am attempting to make though, in the sense that a corrupt businessman may enjoy blackmailing another and getting pleasure out of their suffering, same way abusive husbands beat their arranged wives for amusement. These are predators, and they know it, same way we know it. The difference is they choose to be unpleasant. Anyone with common sense, or perhaps should I say higher moral value of life, has the potential to be a very nice person indeed. But these cases differ continuously. Simply trying to show how niceness and unpleasantness is something we all have a choice in. And I wouldn't consider slavery or imprisonment to be very moral, based on such.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36255014]No, that's my point. Solely relying on things that vary from person to person to guide your actions isn't a good idea.[/QUOTE] There are two very different and important things going on here. You're arguing about a SINGLE PERSON in OUR SOCIETY that enjoys hurting other people. That person is obviously wrong because the common morale our society shares is that that is completely unacceptable. What you aren't arguing about is "what if the whole society thought it was morally right to hurt other people", of course bringing up a "what if" argument after having recently complained about it is humorous, but it is a possible situation and is what morale is all about. If a whole society said it was ok, then it would be ok for that society, if that society was a whole planet, then on that planet it would be ok. There would be nothing actually wrong with it. Just like there is nothing wrong with cats killing small animals for enjoyment, we dislike it, but that's because we've been taught that isn't right, not because we instinctively think so.

[QUOTE=Lost Darkness;36255057]You have to remember that culture has very little to do with the point I am attempting to make though, in the sense that a corrupt businessman may enjoy blackmailing another and getting pleasure out of their suffering, same way abusive husbands beat their arranged wives for amusement. These are predators, and they know it, same way we know it. The difference is they choose to be unpleasant. Anyone with common sense, or perhaps should I say higher moral value of life, has the potential to be a very nice person indeed. But these cases differ continuously. Simply trying to show how niceness and unpleasantness is something we all have a choice in. And I wouldn't consider slavery or imprisonment to be very moral, based on such.[/QUOTE] But those people clearly don't have the same common sense of decency as others or they wouldn't engage in such behavior. How can we know they choose to be unpleasant? Perhaps you and I are merely fortunate enough to have a developed conscience that prevents us from harming others.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36255175]How can we know they choose to be unpleasant? Perhaps you and I are merely fortunate enough to have a developed conscience that prevents us from harming others.[/QUOTE] I'd level that down to one's intelligence and understanding. That, plus one would begin to wonder what purpose the pain has, if there's no obvious purpose then they would be labeled, by human nature, as a bad person. Correction: Of course if they were Told by the pain inflicter that the purpose was due to law/religion/etc then they wouldn't question it. This then proceeds to culture, in which you make valid points.

[QUOTE=dgg;36254998]If the society the people are in thinks of it as acceptable then it is. What is right and wrong is dictated by people, not some universal law made by the cosmos. Saying otherwise means that you are argumenting with your heart and not reason.[/QUOTE] The existence of morality arose as a result of human evolution out of necessity. Which is why the same basic principles of morality such as altruism are present in every culture. And emotions such as empathy and guilt are present in every person unless they're a sociopath. There's a reason why the concept of the golden rule came about independently in every society. Much of morality is not subjective, but certain actions such as killing and torturing for some kind of sadistic pleasure or personal gain are universally considered to be wrong.

[QUOTE=Last or First;36250151]"Well, in [I]East Europe[/I] it's okay to marry a 14 year old, you're just against it because you're culture biased!"[/QUOTE] The average standard in Eastern europe is fifteen as the age for legal sex 18 for legal marriage which can be pushed down to sixteen if a court agrees. (generally only with with some reasons on why the marriage should be allowed prior to eighteen.) The important thing is, that you can only marry if you have legal liability in the majority of European, including east European nations. So if the court gives consent to be married prior to eighteen you get an earlier full liability and rights as well. [QUOTE=Melkor;36253766]No, morality is objective. It can be measured by how your actions affect others. And really saying "But it's their culture!" is such a weak argument. Slavery is slavery regardless of whether put under the guise of a marriage. And women have been killed or had their faces melted by acid for refusing to be forced into arranged marriages.[/QUOTE] Morality generally has both subjective and Objective elements. For instance objectively speaking - killing is bad. But it also has a subjective part on what killing is bad and when it is moral. In the US for instance - a lot of people consider the death pentalty as moral. In a different culture a a smaller or larger set of sanctioned or unsanctioned killing can be considered moral or immoral. In other cultures any killing is considered immoral. So overall while most cultures can see the same moral notion they have a very different scale subjective application of that moral notion. From that you honestly cannot claim that morality is objective. Morality is the subjective application of objective constructs.