From a scientific perspective using evolution as our rationale, people exist for the same reason that the US and Israel exists. They have power over the rest of nature.
Your analysis is largely valid except when you start greying the line between subjective morality and facts.
From a scientific perspective using evolution as our rationale, people exist for the same reason that the US and Israel exists. They have power over the rest of nature.
Your analysis is largely valid except when you start greying the line between subjective morality and facts.
Living people have a right to go on living but the idea that people have a right to exist in the first place, e.g. be conceived and not aborted, has a lot of logical problems, not the least of which is the infeasibility of time travel.
If you are referencing the UN definition of Human Rights. Both the United States and Israel are recognized states by the UN. From the UN perspective, they have a "right" to exist.
You cannot use "right" as a UN concept on one side and then "power" defined as a fact on the other.
Evolution trumps the UN in all cases. Its just a matter of time. The UN is trying to maintain status quo in the face of evolution and power makes right. I believe in evolution. The UN is a figment of peoples imagination. It ignores the human condition and the facts of human history.
You are falling into the same inconsistency as the people you are referencing in the article.
"If you are referencing the UN definition of Human Rights. Both the United States and Israel are recognized states by the UN. From the UN perspective, they have a "right" to exist."
States are not people. And the legal and political concepts that apply to states and people are different in many ways. Therefore recognising the existence of a state without arguing it has a special right to exist, is not a contradiction.
If you want to talk about some anarchist future where rights and governments and the UN no longer exist, and everybody just does whatever they want because that's your conception of the human condition, that's fine. But it's not the world we live in today. So I'm not talking about that.
You are ignoring the basis of the human condition for idealistic morals.
Might makes right and always will. Human history proves it. ThatтАЩs why the US and for that matter Israel invest heavily in the military. Western Europe ONLY exists today because they have the US as part of NATO. The have under invested in their military because of their idealistic perspectives that humans will rise to a greater moral perspective, They are realizing now that the Muslim world and Russia for that matter donтАЩt agree with western morality.
Thats the reality of the situation. Anything else is pretending humans can get along!
People do not have a right to exist.
From a scientific perspective using evolution as our rationale, people exist for the same reason that the US and Israel exists. They have power over the rest of nature.
Your analysis is largely valid except when you start greying the line between subjective morality and facts.
"People do not have a right to exist."
The right to life is universally recognised as a human right.
Living people have a right to go on living but the idea that people have a right to exist in the first place, e.g. be conceived and not aborted, has a lot of logical problems, not the least of which is the infeasibility of time travel.
Then we get into the definition of "right".
Is "right" a moral concept or a factual concept.
If you are referencing the UN definition of Human Rights. Both the United States and Israel are recognized states by the UN. From the UN perspective, they have a "right" to exist.
You cannot use "right" as a UN concept on one side and then "power" defined as a fact on the other.
Evolution trumps the UN in all cases. Its just a matter of time. The UN is trying to maintain status quo in the face of evolution and power makes right. I believe in evolution. The UN is a figment of peoples imagination. It ignores the human condition and the facts of human history.
You are falling into the same inconsistency as the people you are referencing in the article.
"If you are referencing the UN definition of Human Rights. Both the United States and Israel are recognized states by the UN. From the UN perspective, they have a "right" to exist."
States are not people. And the legal and political concepts that apply to states and people are different in many ways. Therefore recognising the existence of a state without arguing it has a special right to exist, is not a contradiction.
If you want to talk about some anarchist future where rights and governments and the UN no longer exist, and everybody just does whatever they want because that's your conception of the human condition, that's fine. But it's not the world we live in today. So I'm not talking about that.
Very defensive response.
You are ignoring the basis of the human condition for idealistic morals.
Might makes right and always will. Human history proves it. ThatтАЩs why the US and for that matter Israel invest heavily in the military. Western Europe ONLY exists today because they have the US as part of NATO. The have under invested in their military because of their idealistic perspectives that humans will rise to a greater moral perspective, They are realizing now that the Muslim world and Russia for that matter donтАЩt agree with western morality.
Thats the reality of the situation. Anything else is pretending humans can get along!