scigirl

Hello,

In a debate with Thomas Cassidy over at E/C, I made a statement that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights was a better guide for morals than the Bible.

This last summer I visited the United Nations building in New York City. On the wall is posted their Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I was struck with a sense of awe when reading these statements. A group of intelligent people from all over the world attempted, with their logic and reason and sense of humanity, to write out a code of ethics for humanity. No divine inspiration, no analogies to mustard seeds or doors, just straight plain talk on how we should just be good to and respect each other.

Here are some questions I have for people (theists especially):

1) Do you agree that this declaration contains good morals for humans?

2) If yes, than how do you think these morals were derived by the writers at the U.N.?

3) Two fold question: Does the Bible contain these same, or better morals for humans?

If not, than why use it at all?

If so, why did it take so freaking long for humans to figure it out, if the Bible was written by a magical god for the sole purpose of telling us how to behave?

scigirl

Celsus

I'm not sure how appropriate this is for BC&A, but anyway...

1) Do you agree that this declaration contains good morals for humans?

I don't think the UN DoHR is a matter of morals. The only specific statement is in Article 1: "They... should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." The rest are essentially limitation on governments and guidelines on political activity. The rights are essentially Enlightenment-era values, not particularly revolutionary considering how long it took to get on to the international agenda.

2) If yes, than how do you think these morals were derived by the writers at the U.N.?

The rationality of the Enlightenment mostly, but also a bit of experience.

3) Two fold question: Does the Bible contain these same, or better morals for humans?

I've stated this somewhere else: I don't care whether the Bible (or the UN DoHR for that matter) has anything good to say. The important part is simply the thought processes involved in deriving a sense of morality towards others. Of course, it needs to be checked by others. The morality from authority argument is a debasement of humanity, liberty, reason and justice.

"If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." - Michael Bakunin.

Joel

KnightWhoSaysNi

I agree with scigirl. Compare these views on religious tolerance:

"If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness." -- Deut. 13:6-11

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." -- Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18

Now one of these was inspired by depraved fallible humans while the other many claim was inspired by an omnibenevolent deity. Which society would you prefer to live under? The biblical deity wouldn't be my first choice to run an organization like Amnesty International.

dk

Before endorsing/objecting to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights I would like to inquire as to the origins of inalienable rights. Obviously if human rights are inalienable they predate the UN’s Charter.

dk

Putting aside the Bible and [g]God[s][ess][es], Civilizations, cultures, communities, families etc... grow and prosper by solving problems, then move on to let the dead bury the dead. As it turned out Malthus got it wrong. Human production outpaces human population except when people simply can't get along. To the extent human rights teach people to get along, everyone benefits. It appears to me human rights are a good idea, but insufficient as a basis of morality (order) i.e. my liberty ends where the freedom of others begins. Clearly economic imperialism, colonialism, fascism, capitalism, secularism, humanism, communism and utilitarianism are also inadaquate to the task. In fact they seem to become tyrannical, imperialistic, inequitable and inhuman as they mature. The 20th Century was the bloodies in human history under the tutelage of reason alone. I guess that brings us back to the Bible, morality and God.

Celsus

Hi dk,
Yes they do predate the UN charter. That was the point of my reply - they came from the Enlightenment. However, "inalienable" does not mean "objective" or "permanent". It means "cannot be taken away". And if you're trying to drag this back to the Bible, you're going to be sadly mistaken. Freedom is most certainly not an inalienable right in the Bible.
Not a bad analysis so far...
Very bad analysis here. I'll leave economic imperialism, colonialism, fascism, capitalism, communism and utilitarianism out for now, since this thread is not about those topics (and I also agree with you to a large extent on those ideas being inadequate). That leaves secularism and humanism.

Secularism is simply ideas operating without divine fiat. i.e. there are rational reasons for ideas. This is exactly what is needed for society. A plural society, where every ideology is questioned, every bias forced to qualify itself, and every bit of reasoning able to stand the toughest scrutiny. We don't need a society that blindly follows authority, whether it is government or gods. You have completely missed Nightshade's point even as you quoted him.
Humanism is a philosophy that man has no need for recourse to the supernatural. In fact, modern humanism is very much stronger: It is belief that rational man is far superior to superstitious man. It may not be adequate to the task you state, but it is one hell of a lot better than the Dark Ages.
Tyrranical? Back to the Bible? Belief that man doesn't need recourse to a supernatural authority? That is one of the greatest liberations the Enlightenment has done for us! Did you read my Bakunin quote? Do you know why I posted that? Because without God, man is free to derive morality from reason. We don't need to obey the paedophile priests who preach that accusations should not be entertained unless there are several witnesses (1 Tim 5:19). We don't need to obey the misogynists who preach that women should be silent in assemblies (1 Cor 14:34). In fact the fine art of tuning one's morality towards a just, humane and compassionate system must be done in the absence of authority, but with plenty of checks on the assumptions from fellow humans. That is what Bakunin is talking about in God and the State.

And while the 20th century was bloody, it was not under the "tutelage of reason alone". If anything, it was a clash of intolerance that came about through the meeting of closed worldviews. But that is a digression. I can only assume you are simply ignorant, and not wilfully dishonest by saying such things.

Joel

KnightWhoSaysNi

The Taliban and Al Quaeda would completely agree with you.

Seriously, in biblical times, if people had gas chambers, nuclear weapons, and machine guns, do you think it would be any less bloodier? Societies living under OT laws would make the Holocaust look like a drive-by shooting.

Humanity has evolved and human rights are a consequence of that. There will always be those who seek tyranny though, much like the OT laws.

dk

dk: As a proposition, evolution being the source of Inalienable Human Rights (IHR) is fraught with problems. When governments change (evolve) from one form to another the constituents don’t become a new species. No, the concept of IHR stems from a doctrine that human beings innately contain certain rights whether governments recognize them or not, and that these rights are naturally expressed through democratic processes, and so democratic republics by extension become evolutionary mechanisms (causal agents) that manifest IHR under the rule of law. Yet the Ancient Greeks through democratic processes elected to fight endless petty wars between city/states literally bleeding themselves of their life’s blood. Were the Ancient Greeks ruined by democratic processes as the laws of Evolution seem to suggest? The French Revolution deposed a monarchy to establish a democratic form of government, then became the French Terror, that in turn became the Napoleonic Empire that trashed most of Europe. The economies and cultures of the Roman Empire, New World and NAZI Germany were all built on a system of forced labor and conquest. In these instances it appears the Laws of Evolution imply the source of IHR to be slavery and imperial conquest. I think you’ll agree this logic is fallacious. What we observe from the historical record is the concepts of slavery and conquest through some mechanism being transformed into something else. To ascribe IHR to evolution literally has no meaning. Ambitious men have been using one form or another of this doctrine to establish themselves as tyrants since the dawn of civilization.

scigirl

Can I ask a dumb question? I don't see how any of DK's posts answer my original question. So, do they?

scigirl

KnightWhoSaysNi

dk,

Let's have another glance at that Bible quote:

"If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness." -- Deut. 13:6-11

How one can derive the wisdom of inalienable human rights from "inspiration" like this really boggles my mind. I think it is obvious that the ancient Hebrew culture embraced an in-group form of morality. In other words, paraphrasing Michael Shermer, don't steal and be kind to your neighbour, but anything goes with those bastards on the other side of the river. The OT is certainly not a message for universal human rights.

However, the OT does provide inspiration and justfication for those who detest universal human rights. People such as Christian Reconstructionists, the Christian Identity movement, along with those who perpetrated the Crusades and the Inquisition.