The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
UF Philosophy Corner - Ethics by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 08:21:28
  In order: by werehatrack2008-10-21 08:35:19
    I like all but the first. by tallastro2008-10-21 08:48:31
      Could there ever be a right by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 08:53:44
        Yes, I think so. by tallastro2008-10-21 09:02:17
          I'm not clear on one thing. by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 09:07:59
            I believe werehatrack's claim is that by bitflipper2008-10-21 09:34:39
              Disagree. by werehatrack2008-10-21 09:55:55
                Sure it is by bitflipper2008-10-21 10:11:18
                  Is that a right though, or merely a universal by subbywan2008-10-21 10:13:34
                    What is the difference between by bitflipper2008-10-21 10:27:05
                      No, because "violation" is subjective. by subbywan2008-10-21 10:52:18
                        Sometimes, though, you don't by bitflipper2008-10-21 10:56:20
                          I wanted to get away from the human examples by subbywan2008-10-21 10:59:44
                            O-kay, but it still begs the question by bitflipper2008-10-21 11:20:43
                              There isn't an appeal by subbywan2008-10-21 11:25:20
                                Which is precisely why by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:33:46
                                Which is exactly why I wouldn't :) by subbywan2008-10-21 11:38:55
                                Of course it can by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 11:47:55
                                Because if it can be taken away, it's conditional by subbywan2008-10-21 11:52:24
                                But a right does not guarantee outcome by bitflipper2008-10-21 12:08:10
                                Then it's not a right. by subbywan2008-10-21 12:32:51
                                Precisely. by bitflipper2008-10-21 12:51:28
                                It does only apply to a few. by subbywan 2008-10-21 13:14:48
There is nothing, other than ourselves, that protect the unprivileged from the privileged. We see evidence of that throughout history. Indeed one could argue that inequality is the very basis OF being human.

The idea that exploitation is wrong, as a general concept, is relatively new, in terms of it being applicable to society in general - The Babylonians enslaved people. They were later destroyed. The Romans kept slaves and built a massive empire. The Chinese prospered on the backs of their non-nobility. The Europeans spread out across the world by virtue of exploitation. The US was founded on the very basis of not wanting to be exploited, and then turned around and built itself up on slave labour, etc.

Exploitation of the unprivileged by the privileged is probably the single most common human trait we have.

Even today, the rich get rich by exploiting the poor and the gulliable (look at the housing market and the credit markets -- People were talked into taking mortgages they couldn't afford, and into accepting credit they didn't deserve, so the companies could turn a larger profit).

Many of our jobs are shipped overseas because it's easier and cheaper to build factories in India and China where labour is cheap and things like safety regulations much easier to overcome.

The only, partial, exceptions we have to this is where society has limited *itself*. We have no absolute examples of rights even today, only *some* rights (like the abolishment of the death penalty in some places). And that only came to be because *people* decided to institute laws that said "You can kill, but we won't. We'll just lock you up". Even there, the most they can do is institutionalize (by means of laws and statutes) their own actions. They use force to ensure what they believe to be the rights of others -- They will not extradite people to countries where they may still face the death penalty, and they will protect that person by force of arms (ie, some other country would have to violate their statehood to get the person, much like Israel does with Nazis in non-extradition countries).

I'm afraid that history has clearly demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate that society is VERY particular about which rights apply to who, and is very unequal in it's application thereof.

[ Reply ]
                                History has demonstrated by MatthewDBA2008-10-21 13:31:32
                                Exactly. What history has demonstrated by bitflipper2008-10-21 13:36:04
                                Rights can't be taken away. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:45:49
                                Then we come back to by bitflipper2008-10-21 13:52:16
                                Which I argue is wishful thinking. by subbywan2008-10-21 13:59:29
                                Then rights exist by dint of those same by bitflipper2008-10-21 14:16:03
                                Nope. i made no such claim by subbywan2008-10-21 14:30:24

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)