Current events and sweeping generalisations

[year_x]

This and this have made me think. I have mixed feelings about the Danish cartoon fiasco. On the one hand, freedom of speech and criticism is so important. But then, surely to have a freedom requires responsibility, and so in this instance was it right to piss some people off on purpose? Especially the type of people with connections to extremists.

Comments

[glass_bubblegum]

>>On that note, I was searching for a 'universal' idea which all reasonable people should adhere to.

You can't found a universal on a value judgement as subjective as 'reasonable people'; obviously your idea of what is reasonable will vary greatly from someone else's, so you've then got to build some equally subjective structure to justify which idea is more valid. The closest I think you can get is by going with 'the majority of people' instead, which will never be anywhere near 100% and as you well know is not necessarily pleasant to consider.

Essentially we set out universals in law and unspoken social codes largely for the sake of maintaining/shifting a status quo, but rarely for any applaudable cultural or moral reasons. Taking your 'all people are of equal value' thing, most people will take that at face value until you make the person in question a paedophile or a murderer, then you'll find agreement drops significantly. It functions as a means of enforcing legal and social standards, not defending Great Justice or anything as admirable as that.

[llamarines]

I'd agree - but I would say all people have inviolable human rights until they significantly affect someone else, via murder, rape or serious assault or whatever. Then by virtue of taking away someone elses rights you give up your own - your value, if you will - to an extent.

Obviously, tit for tat isn't appropriate, and I fully agree in the Human Rights ActI- also don't agree with the modifications to recent UK law which allows for the crazy detention periods of terror suspects. There's no point in raping a rapist in retribution for something they've done, for example (unless the rapist was a clown, that would have some pretty serious lulz inherent in the situation.)

[glass_bubblegum]

>>all people have inviolable human rights until they significantly affect someone else, via murder, rape or serious assault or whatever

This is exactly the way I see it too, in both an ideological and practical sense for a change.

However, it's still problematic as a universal because you've then got to define what 'significantly' harms someone, which again differs vastly depending on your viewpoint. This constant need to refine a statement will always haunt the search for a rigid universal like the one Aythan seems to be grasping for is unachievable: it has to be flexible enough to withstand contextualisation, but also specific enough to avoid meaninglessness.

I'd love to see someone hit the jackpot there but I'll probably be more likely to get to see Jesus and Hitler battle atop dinosaurs, so I'll go on hoping for the latter instead.

[glass_bubblegum]

Oh goddamnit, I seem to be physically incapable of proof-reading my comments. Need a paid account again so can edit the bloody things. This bit...

>>This constant need to refine a statement will always haunt the search for a rigid universal like the one Aythan seems to be grasping for is unachievable

...should read more like '..grasping for, making it unachievable'. But hopefully you get my gist anyway!