Are there any "tribal" or "status" limits to who deserves to be treated as a real human being. Cultures develop strong rules for how you treat someone, but there are all sorts of limits on who gets treated as a real person. Human inequality was thought to be a basic fact of existence. Good citizens of Greece and Rome treated boys of low birth as sexual objects, and dumped them when they were no longer desirable. Christianity played a role in changing this, in that Christians saw every person as someone for whom Christ died, so would it really make sense to believe that Christ died for human garbage? But Christians have not absorbed this message consistently, as some of them owned slaves and treated them like human garbage. We've become convinced, in theory, that every human being is worth of respect, in society as a whole, but if someone needed to be persuaded that all humans deserve respect and there is no human garbage, I am not sure how you'd argue it without religious premises.
17 comments:
As you have pointed out, adding in religious premises doesn't help unless you can convince the human rights skeptic of those particular premises.
For the most part, people will believe what then want to believe and find justifications for it, and then they change their mind when they are ready and find justifications for that.
But we might ask whether we have good reasons to overcome human rights skepticism if theism is true, and whether we have such reasons if atheism is true. Nietzsche seems to have a naturalistic case against human rights.
I personally can see no way to make a logically coherent case for the dignity of mankind and existence of human rights without God. (An atheistic emotional (but not rational) case for them is certainly possible.)
I use my baseball analogy here. Without an umpire who is not himself a player in the game, who is to say whether any pitch is either a ball or a strike, or whether on not a runner is out at first base? Can't be done.
Waiting for Opening Day?
Perpetually. I am Sisyphus, forever pushing a gigantic baseball up a towering pitcher's mound.
Victor,
I agree with Starhopper that there is no non-emotional basis for human rights. I happen to see that more broadly. There is no non-emotional basis for any sort of moral position, whether you are religious or irreligious. Every system I have see proposed, at one level or other, needs to argue for some basic notion of good. You can't have turtles all the way down.
Catholic priest has a few things to say about the bishops and the church and - yes - abortion (human dignity). A homily with some much needed spice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8JVWH2N4B4&t=2s
Sounds like an "extremist" to me.
Pope Francis tells us there is too much division in the Catholic Church today. I'm inclined to agree with him.
Anyone who exacerbates the differences between Catholics to the point of encouraging schism, especially in a public forum, is reenacting the 2nd Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary. Once again, the vey Body of Christ is scourged at the pillar of personal agenda and (yes) extremism.
Then stop being divisive.
Try to see it my way,
Do I have to keep on talking till I can't go on?
While you see it your way,
Run the risk of knowing that our love may soon be gone.
We can work it out,
We can work it out.
Think of what you're saying.
You can get it wrong and still you think that it's alright.
Think of what I'm saying,
We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night.
We can work it out,
We can work it out.
(Lennon and McCartney)
“Among the vulnerable for whom the church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this.
…Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the church cannot be expected to change her position on this question… It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life…”
– Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium #213-214
Absolute, unhesitating, total agreement.
“The victims of this [throwaway] culture are precisely the weakest and most fragile human beings — the unborn, the poorest, the sick and elderly, the seriously handicapped, etc. — who are in danger of being ‘thrown away,’ expelled from a system that must be efficient at all costs.
…It is necessary to raise awareness and form the lay faithful, in whatever state, especially those engaged in the field of politics, so that they may think in accord with the Gospel and the social doctrine of the church and act consistently by dialoguing and collaborating with those who, in sincerity and intellectual honesty, share — if not the faith — at least a similar vision of mankind and society and its ethical consequences.”
– Pope Francis, Speech to a delegation from the Dignitatis Humanae Institute Dec. 7, 2013
Yes. Not the the tiniest difference between those statements and my own beliefs.
Pope Francis is encouraging division (via raising awareness) in the Catholic Church between the lay faithful and politicians that don’t think in accordance with church doctrine. This is what the priest is doing.
Anyone who exacerbates the differences between Catholics to the point of encouraging schism, especially in a public forum, is reenacting the 2nd Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary. Once again, the vey Body of Christ is scourged at the pillar of personal agenda and (yes) extremism.
Starhopper dissents, in a public forum, with Catholic teaching on the need to outlaw abortion. I consider this more than a mere exacerbation of differences between Catholics, but a public act of defiance against the Catholic Church and an invitation to others to follow him into schism.
I concur with his own assessment that he is an extremist.
Post a Comment