Message from @Hexidecimark
Discord ID: 603624756956364805
This requires no religious component unless you assume people saying 'this seems right based on what we know' is somehow religious in nature
because weather it is beneficial or not is defined by the value system
*whether
that is what you gage the effect of the right by
"beneficial" means: good as far as my value system is concerned
Okay, so then you would naturally still gain from rights, but the rights would be different
what?
gain what?
Scope creep is bad
I'm not following at all
You do not want scope creep
So you limit the scope
scope of wat?
You will either use rights or an analogous system to accomplish this
scope of governmental bodies
if by analogous you mean something like "laws" then yes
the difference is that laws don;t make some claim to universality
Yeet
rights are a decalogue that is mutable
Mental gymnastics cancer
meaning it's not a decalogue
Because that is what they functionally *are*
cool, but then they are not some special cathegory
Correct
which is my point
All they are is laws
They are just distinct from laws in impact and scale
But they are effectively laws, yes
and laws need justification by some moral imperative
No, they do not
then ur laws are evil by definition
which is rather obviously a problem
I disagree with your values, you're just calling me different
I'm calling you incorrect
According to your system of beliefs, sure
morality is the theory of action
some actions are good some are bad
you can argue about lesser evils
and whatnot
but it's pretty clear that the goal is to minimize them and try for the good
But I can pass a law without taking any of this into account