It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative. Nature or the universe do not enforce them. You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right. That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed, they have to be defended constantly. Both physically and legally, both against internal and external threats.
Mistaken reality aside, The (alternate) Janeway has a point. Everything we’ve painstakingly fought for previously has to be backed up by those willing to ensure those rights remain. By what means is yet to be seen, preferably by ink or, as needed, by force. Understandably, blood has already been spilled, but we hope to not need go further.
It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative.
As much as philosophy, mathematics, logic.
Relativistic fallacy: relative is the wrong word.
They’re unfalsifiable.
Nonetheless, committing yourself to a set of premises commits you to their logical consequences.
Consistency demands rejecting contradictions.
You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right.
Moral relativism.
Do you think we should respect a moral system that accepts slavery as much as one that doesn’t?
If not, then you’re not a moral relativist, and that’s a relativist fallacy.
That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy.
The premise (if you accept it) is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them.
Violations are unjust.
They don’t imply a legal system can’t violate ethics.
They’re for arguing a system shouldn’t & to demand a more just one.
It’s still up to us to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought (or the contrapositive in this case) is a naturalistic fallacy.
It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative. Nature or the universe do not enforce them. You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right. That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed, they have to be defended constantly. Both physically and legally, both against internal and external threats.
Mistaken reality aside, The (alternate) Janeway has a point. Everything we’ve painstakingly fought for previously has to be backed up by those willing to ensure those rights remain. By what means is yet to be seen, preferably by ink or, as needed, by force. Understandably, blood has already been spilled, but we hope to not need go further.
As much as philosophy, mathematics, logic. Relativistic fallacy: relative is the wrong word. They’re unfalsifiable.
Nonetheless, committing yourself to a set of premises commits you to their logical consequences. Consistency demands rejecting contradictions.
Moral relativism. Do you think we should respect a moral system that accepts slavery as much as one that doesn’t? If not, then you’re not a moral relativist, and that’s a relativist fallacy.
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy. The premise (if you accept it) is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them. Violations are unjust.
They don’t imply a legal system can’t violate ethics. They’re for arguing a system shouldn’t & to demand a more just one. It’s still up to us to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought (or the contrapositive in this case) is a naturalistic fallacy.