This is funny! I hate fish! I do agree that if fathers spent more time with their kids there probably wouldn't be kids with guns and so on. My husband took my niece fishing for her first time last summer and she LOVED it! It was so cute.. her smiling so proud of her small fish. But yeah. If you are going to kill it for food.... go for it!
Fishing - is it TORTURE?
- Thread starter GoingNova
- Start date
They are fish.
What I dont understand is, if we werent ment to kill animals... why are there animals? There are two answers to this. The evolution answer "Many animals evolved, they are here because of random chance and survival of the fittest." If this is the case then there is no reason not to kill them. They are weaker then us and provide us sustanance and entertainment (For those who actually like fishing) We are not wiping fish of the planet by fishing. No real harm is done to the balance of nature. There are still plenty of fish out there.
Answer B. Fish have a fundamental right not to be hurt. But let me get this straight? These people are saying that there is some metaphysical unalienable right for animals to be free from pain? The problem with this answer is that to accept it, you then also have to accept other metaphysics. If there are fundamental rights it is also almost required for there to be a god. (Note I am not saying the God, but A god.) You must beleive in somthing beyond the physical world, beyond science and knowledge.
Athiesm and animal rights reeeeeeeeealy just dont go together. And darn near every animal rights activist I have met (I live in Seattle remember, we breed them here) Nearly every one, also clames to be an Atheist. And so far not a one of them have been able to answer that question.
My solution? Its somewhere in between. Humans have fundamental rights, animals dont. Simple as that. Now does that mean I delight in thier pain? No it just means that for the most part I am indifferent to it. I dont like people that hurt animals for fun, the kid who ties firecrackers to his cats tail for example. But really I only care if its what I deem a 'higher' animal. Basically anything bigger then a house cat should not hurt for S and Gs. I have not problem with hunting because hunters will eat it, sell the hides and get some use out of it. I don't care much for sport hunting but thats not because of metaphysics, I just think its dumb.
Basically the core of my argument is that the arguments activists use are cyclical.
If animals have fundamental rights, then there must be somthing "spiritual" or "Metaphysical" but if this is the case, and there is a god, or gods or great spirit, or whatever, then why do we have canine teeth? If animals have a fundamental right to not be hurt, why do humans not have fur to keep us warm in the winter. Early man needed to kill animals to live. Until the invention of the loom, we really had to wear skins to stay warm. So basically, if there is a creator then that creator must think its OK to kill animals. If there is no creator, if there is no metaphysics then there are no animal rights.
What I dont understand is, if we werent ment to kill animals... why are there animals? There are two answers to this. The evolution answer "Many animals evolved, they are here because of random chance and survival of the fittest." If this is the case then there is no reason not to kill them. They are weaker then us and provide us sustanance and entertainment (For those who actually like fishing) We are not wiping fish of the planet by fishing. No real harm is done to the balance of nature. There are still plenty of fish out there.
Answer B. Fish have a fundamental right not to be hurt. But let me get this straight? These people are saying that there is some metaphysical unalienable right for animals to be free from pain? The problem with this answer is that to accept it, you then also have to accept other metaphysics. If there are fundamental rights it is also almost required for there to be a god. (Note I am not saying the God, but A god.) You must beleive in somthing beyond the physical world, beyond science and knowledge.
Athiesm and animal rights reeeeeeeeealy just dont go together. And darn near every animal rights activist I have met (I live in Seattle remember, we breed them here) Nearly every one, also clames to be an Atheist. And so far not a one of them have been able to answer that question.
My solution? Its somewhere in between. Humans have fundamental rights, animals dont. Simple as that. Now does that mean I delight in thier pain? No it just means that for the most part I am indifferent to it. I dont like people that hurt animals for fun, the kid who ties firecrackers to his cats tail for example. But really I only care if its what I deem a 'higher' animal. Basically anything bigger then a house cat should not hurt for S and Gs. I have not problem with hunting because hunters will eat it, sell the hides and get some use out of it. I don't care much for sport hunting but thats not because of metaphysics, I just think its dumb.
Basically the core of my argument is that the arguments activists use are cyclical.
If animals have fundamental rights, then there must be somthing "spiritual" or "Metaphysical" but if this is the case, and there is a god, or gods or great spirit, or whatever, then why do we have canine teeth? If animals have a fundamental right to not be hurt, why do humans not have fur to keep us warm in the winter. Early man needed to kill animals to live. Until the invention of the loom, we really had to wear skins to stay warm. So basically, if there is a creator then that creator must think its OK to kill animals. If there is no creator, if there is no metaphysics then there are no animal rights.
Humans only have rights insofar as we choose to give them to ourselves and to enforce them. If we choose to extend those rights to animals, then those animals will gain rights. Rights are an entirely Human conception.
The problem with killing animals is that even if we hunt them purely for food, we can still cause extinction without really putting too much effort into it. Fishing is a good example of that. The Grand Banks would be a case in point.
The problem with killing animals is that even if we hunt them purely for food, we can still cause extinction without really putting too much effort into it. Fishing is a good example of that. The Grand Banks would be a case in point.
If humans have rights insofar as we choose to enforce them then why is it that we see dictators who oppress the people as wrong?
In Nazi Germany, Hitler did not enforce any rights for Jews. Did that mean that they had no rights? If the truly had no rights because the government gave them none, then does that not mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did?
I guess what I am getting at is that the difference between humans and animals is that while animals can be given rights, we have the right to have rights! If our rights are not enforced, we still have them, and the people not enforcing them are wrong. All humanity should have the rights to life, liberty and property. They are inherent to our being human. And if they are not enherant to our being human then evil men who grant no rights are not in the wrong.
If rights are not enherent then we cannot logically punish evil. Or logically even call someone evil.
In Nazi Germany, Hitler did not enforce any rights for Jews. Did that mean that they had no rights? If the truly had no rights because the government gave them none, then does that not mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did?
I guess what I am getting at is that the difference between humans and animals is that while animals can be given rights, we have the right to have rights! If our rights are not enforced, we still have them, and the people not enforcing them are wrong. All humanity should have the rights to life, liberty and property. They are inherent to our being human. And if they are not enherant to our being human then evil men who grant no rights are not in the wrong.
If rights are not enherent then we cannot logically punish evil. Or logically even call someone evil.
Yes, I suppose that fishing is torturous. I don't particularly care.
As to the question of "absolute rights" vs. "rights as a social construction." It's pretty hard to argue that rights aren't socially constructed, given the differences in the rights doctrines of different cultures. At least in a functional sense, rights are socially constructed. Any argument that rights are somehow inherent to human beings (or to mammals, vertebrates, all animals, or all bioforms or whatever), whether or not they are actually respected, must rely on some kind of objective (or at least inter-subjective) standard for the determination of moral rectitude. Sicander's right to point out that that sounds awfully religious.
Now, I suppose it doesn't have to be. Some standards have been advanced; rights are granted on the basis of relative intelligence in a utilitarian GHP (Greatest Happiness Principle) framework. So humans are the most important, while apes are still pretty important, and worms are pretty much completely unimportant. There are a couple of problems with this: the first is that, if you measure by IQ, a retarded infant has a lower IQ than an adult chimpanzee. I will not support any philosophy that would, if required to choose between saving the chimpanzee and saving the child, morally justify saving the chimpanzee. Moreover, you still have to justify why we should care at all about the happiness of things other than humans, or indeed, other than ourselves, and that's not something one can get to deductively or inductively. It turns out that there is no such thing as a logically coherent moral philosophy other than agnostic nihilism (not agnostic like the religious belief: in this case it means "no knowledge of objective morality"). So how do we live a moral life? We choose to believe in morality. We choose to believe in human rights. So again, we have constructed our moral conceptions either culturally or independently: this is still not "objective" by any means.
But shared moral standards, however arbitrary, may create inter-subjectivity. This is little more than a relativist's way of trying to get out of their inability to hold people accountable for anything thought. The moment someone ceases to value things the same way the rest of their culture does, they are not a part of that culture any longer, and they (according to relativist theory) are right to do what their culture finds abhorrent.
So we can't really resolve the question philosophically. We could just cop out and say "God commands thus," ending all debate. Or we could act like rational people do and come up with the few things upon which nearly all of us can agree: what is good for people is, generally, what we ought to be doing.
This seems pretty truistic, but I think the modern environmentalist and animal rights movements have gone a little off the deep end with their strategy of "the natural world has an inherent value in and of itself." I think the reason that these movements are progressively marginalized is because that message doesn't resonate nearly as well as "you should protect the environment so that your family can have tomorrow what you have today." Crazy Greenpeace whackos have hijacked the term environmentalist, so let's use the term "conservationist" for my moral philosophy here. What is good for humans is what is good for our long-term survival and prosperity. Depleting fish stocks destroys local economies that depend upon fishing. And yes, there are some places where sport and commercial fishing are causing unnacceptable depletion of stocks. In those places fishing can and ought to be restricted. In other places fish are overpopulated, as a result of destruction of their natural predators: in those places fishing ought to resume in earnest, and the natural predators be reintroduced.
You cannot create a persuasive ecological philosophy around the valuation of things other than human life and prosperity. This is because while we can empathize with a few animals (like our pets) we really would rather look out for number one. We have a biological imperative to protect and advance our genome, and that is the strongest foothold and environmentalist movement could hope for. Explain why kicking dogs leads to serial killers (yes, this link is real), and I'm all for banning animal cruelty. Explain why overfishing crushes maritime economies, and I'm all for restricting sport fishing. Explain why free range chicken is healthier for my family than chickens raised in tiny cages, and I'll gladly plunk down the extra cash. But all the horrific films in the world won't convince me to send your movement money when I could just as easily send it to the Darfurian genocide relief fund. Because human life is more important to me than that of any animal. This is not because I can prove that it is objectively more important. This is because this is the way nature equipped me. Or, if you believe as I do that God is nature's guide, then this is the way God has made me. And it seems to be the way He made most of the rest of us as well.
As to the question of "absolute rights" vs. "rights as a social construction." It's pretty hard to argue that rights aren't socially constructed, given the differences in the rights doctrines of different cultures. At least in a functional sense, rights are socially constructed. Any argument that rights are somehow inherent to human beings (or to mammals, vertebrates, all animals, or all bioforms or whatever), whether or not they are actually respected, must rely on some kind of objective (or at least inter-subjective) standard for the determination of moral rectitude. Sicander's right to point out that that sounds awfully religious.
Now, I suppose it doesn't have to be. Some standards have been advanced; rights are granted on the basis of relative intelligence in a utilitarian GHP (Greatest Happiness Principle) framework. So humans are the most important, while apes are still pretty important, and worms are pretty much completely unimportant. There are a couple of problems with this: the first is that, if you measure by IQ, a retarded infant has a lower IQ than an adult chimpanzee. I will not support any philosophy that would, if required to choose between saving the chimpanzee and saving the child, morally justify saving the chimpanzee. Moreover, you still have to justify why we should care at all about the happiness of things other than humans, or indeed, other than ourselves, and that's not something one can get to deductively or inductively. It turns out that there is no such thing as a logically coherent moral philosophy other than agnostic nihilism (not agnostic like the religious belief: in this case it means "no knowledge of objective morality"). So how do we live a moral life? We choose to believe in morality. We choose to believe in human rights. So again, we have constructed our moral conceptions either culturally or independently: this is still not "objective" by any means.
But shared moral standards, however arbitrary, may create inter-subjectivity. This is little more than a relativist's way of trying to get out of their inability to hold people accountable for anything thought. The moment someone ceases to value things the same way the rest of their culture does, they are not a part of that culture any longer, and they (according to relativist theory) are right to do what their culture finds abhorrent.
So we can't really resolve the question philosophically. We could just cop out and say "God commands thus," ending all debate. Or we could act like rational people do and come up with the few things upon which nearly all of us can agree: what is good for people is, generally, what we ought to be doing.
This seems pretty truistic, but I think the modern environmentalist and animal rights movements have gone a little off the deep end with their strategy of "the natural world has an inherent value in and of itself." I think the reason that these movements are progressively marginalized is because that message doesn't resonate nearly as well as "you should protect the environment so that your family can have tomorrow what you have today." Crazy Greenpeace whackos have hijacked the term environmentalist, so let's use the term "conservationist" for my moral philosophy here. What is good for humans is what is good for our long-term survival and prosperity. Depleting fish stocks destroys local economies that depend upon fishing. And yes, there are some places where sport and commercial fishing are causing unnacceptable depletion of stocks. In those places fishing can and ought to be restricted. In other places fish are overpopulated, as a result of destruction of their natural predators: in those places fishing ought to resume in earnest, and the natural predators be reintroduced.
You cannot create a persuasive ecological philosophy around the valuation of things other than human life and prosperity. This is because while we can empathize with a few animals (like our pets) we really would rather look out for number one. We have a biological imperative to protect and advance our genome, and that is the strongest foothold and environmentalist movement could hope for. Explain why kicking dogs leads to serial killers (yes, this link is real), and I'm all for banning animal cruelty. Explain why overfishing crushes maritime economies, and I'm all for restricting sport fishing. Explain why free range chicken is healthier for my family than chickens raised in tiny cages, and I'll gladly plunk down the extra cash. But all the horrific films in the world won't convince me to send your movement money when I could just as easily send it to the Darfurian genocide relief fund. Because human life is more important to me than that of any animal. This is not because I can prove that it is objectively more important. This is because this is the way nature equipped me. Or, if you believe as I do that God is nature's guide, then this is the way God has made me. And it seems to be the way He made most of the rest of us as well.
I remember this being my first post on here. I stick with my old opinion by saying Fishing Sucks Eggs!!!!!!!!!
I fished when I was younger. I would catch a bucket filled with what they called sunfish (I'm sure that wasn't their "real" name) and throw them back at the end of the day.
I always caught ALL the fish. They wouldn't bite my cousins' hooks. All I used for bait was rolled-up bread. Maybe they knew I was going to throw them back.
But PETA isn't about people who love animals. It's about malcontents who hate human beings and capitalism even more than they hate people. "Serving sushi at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show," said one giant of the PETA intellect.
They also call a steak dinner "Holocaust on a plate."
Keh.
If you really love animals, volunteer at the ASPCA and clean out some cages!
I always caught ALL the fish. They wouldn't bite my cousins' hooks. All I used for bait was rolled-up bread. Maybe they knew I was going to throw them back.
But PETA isn't about people who love animals. It's about malcontents who hate human beings and capitalism even more than they hate people. "Serving sushi at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show," said one giant of the PETA intellect.
They also call a steak dinner "Holocaust on a plate."
Keh.
If you really love animals, volunteer at the ASPCA and clean out some cages!
OK my point: We are heterotrophs which means we get energy from other heterotrophs and from autotrops. PERIOD. Sadly that even means we might be eaten! :D
That's a good thing except for the little being eaten thing.
PETA is completely out of touch with reality:Sailor Kenshin said:
1) They seem to be unaware that animals kill each other on a daily basis, and as we are omnivores it is our nature to kill and eat other animals.
2) Animal research ultimately benefits animals (I have posted on this elsewhere, and as such I won't waste space repeating myself). Some research (such as the research to create an FELV vaccine) is even done purely for the benefit of animals, as there is no human counterpart to some diseases (such as FELV).
3) One major part of why humans are not used in research when it can be avoided is that humans are LOUSY test subjects. We live too long, take too long to develop, cost too much to maintain, and as we are aware that medicines are intended to relieve illness, the very act of taking something we believe to be a medicine can help cure the illness. Did you know that THINKING you are taking a blood pressure medication will reduce your blood pressure 7% on average (holistic medicine RELIES on this placebo effect)?
I think that Jatkin's post covered the idea of "inherent rights" in that all our rights are socially constructed. All you have to do is go back and see how different societies have (and still do) allow different rights to different classes of citizens. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about punishing "evil" because our society doesn't. We punish people who have broken the social contract of law. There is nothing inherently "evil" about any of it, it is just that we have agreed to abide by certain rules and have agreed on certain punishments for violation. Even that part of the contract changes as times and society change. Of course in totalitarian regimes there is much less change and you don't so much "agree" to the contract as have it forced on you but that is a different discussion.Sidander said:
If you know of some inherent moral code I would love to hear it.
bob_gray said:
Know of some inherent moral code? Lets try this. Those countries whos leaders take away rights and freedoms from thier people. How do you feal about that? Should we let it happen? Is it good, bad or indifferent?
If we have no inherent rights then those leaders can do whatever the hell they want. Because they are the leaders, they are the ones determining the rights. Might makes right then I guess. Say the people overthrow the government. Why? Why would they do that? If they had no inherent rights then they should not feal as if they where being opressed! But they did, they looked at how they where being treated and said "This is wrong!"
Mabey then people rise up in revolution because people are enharently selfish? They want more for themselves. But then why would they be willing to die? Are they just dumb then? If you are fighting to better yourself then why go to the extent of getting yourself killed, where would that get you? (Not that I am saying people arent selfish) People rise up in revolution for the betterment of thier families and friends, why? Why would they do that?
I think they do it because they feal that they have rights and that those rights are being opressed.
Just because a right is being opressed does that mean they it is no longer a right?
In the a long line of our history there are common factors that have gone into every government. The biggest of which being punishment for the crime of Murder. In no culture that I have ever reseached has Murder ever been socialy acceptable. There is always a punishment for it. ALWAYS! Even in the most deplorable sespools of countries there is some sort of punishment for murder. Often despots feal that they are above such law but there is always a law.
If this is truly survival of the fittest then how did this come to be? Animals kill eachother all the time and I have never seen a lion judge sentencing a lion prisoner to the electric chair (I know, horrible analogy but you get the point)
Even in the highest of animal life, even the most intelligent ones have no semblace of moral code, enharent or constructed. Where is the line then? When does an animal become intelligent enough that it developes morals? When does it differ right and wrong on more then just a trained, "Beat or Treat" responce? Why is it when I hear a story of rape and murder I am appauled? I dont know the people involved. I am not linked in anyway. This crime does not effect me, and yet I dispise it? I should not, I should not care, I should not be effected, but I am! WHY?!
I have been to some very backwater places. When I was young I got to see primitive life first hand. For 6 months my family and I lived with an isolated tribe in the jungles of New Guinea. It had only been 10 years since the first outsiders from the civilized world came to live with them. And only 30 since they heard anything about the "Civilized" world. These people, numbering less then 100, had a moral code. They knew right from wrong. Muder was bad, stealing was bad, rape was bad. No one came and told them that, they just knew it!
Tell me, when did man first decide that muder was wrong? When did man develope morals? How could we do this naturally? How could a common moral code develope naturally? It cant! How can you go from survival of the fittest to peacefull society? (Not that we are that peacefull, but we are a hell of alot more peacfull then the animal kingdom)
In modern human culture it is NOT survival if the fittest. Look at a herd of Wildabeasts. What happens when one gets sick? When the predetor comes a runnin what do they do? They get the hell out of there and leave there sick to die.
What happens when we get sick? Do we leave them behind to die? No we round up the wagon train and protect them! We guard our weak and enfeebled. This is a trait unique to man. Self sacrifice.
Wow that got off topic...
Anyway, its a fish. If you dont like fishing, then dont fish but dot get all up on people who like it. Dont call it murder unless you are prepared to admit that there is an enherent moral code.
You are not talking about a moral code here you are still talking about a social contract. The answer to your questions in order are: I don't like it when it happens in my country and I don't like it when it happens in other countries. We should not. It is indifferent with respect to morality as it has nothing to do with morality.Sicander said:
Look at what your country's position is on "inherent rights". The US government under GWB has said that people who aren't US citizens (and even some of them if declared "enemy combatants") aren't entitled to what the civilized world considers basic human rights. Apparently might does make right if you are the US government. The US government thinks that what they are doing is morally right and many other people do not. Again, no well defined moral code. It is relative morality.
It appears that you already answered your own question. People always want to improve their lot in life and it doesn't matter if they are at the top or the bottom of the economic heap. Are you suggesting that the absolute moral code is that you should improve your life at all cost?
The answer to all the "rights" arguments is all the same: rights are not morality, they are a socially constructed permissions.
Here we are getting to something that might sound like an absolute but in all civilized countries we make allowances for different types of murder. Even as recently as 200 years ago in your country not all murder was even punished. A slave owner could kill one of his slaves and not go to jail for it. Social norms change as does the definition of murder.
It came be because one of the features of humanity is that we have a greater degree of cooperation than other species. The idea of "fair" is not unique to humanity we just have a more evolved sense of what is fair. We decided that what was in the best interest of the group was for individuals to not kill each other. Those who did not "play well with others" were ostracized and had fewer opportunities to breed. A prime example of evolution in action.
That was my question to you. Outline a specific moral code that _EVERYONE_ would agree with. As far as a semblance of morality is concerned even monkeys have an idea of fairness. If you want details on this I would be happy to provide them.
That is an easy one, because you have been brought up to believe that it is wrong. Why are people so incensed by pornography in the US and not in Europe? Because the US culture tells its children that pornography is "immoral".
socially constructed and natural.
It can and I explained some above. As far as murder is concerned even a lion is unlikely to stalk and kill its family but it will do so to the wildabeast. Is this morality or just behavior which is good for the species?
You don't think humans do this? Even dolphins and monkeys will help out their elderly by bringing them food, "prosecute" offenders within their social circles and "punish" their youngsters for bad behavior.
Not true. Mothers of many species will willingly give their lives if they think it will let their children live.
Yes but a good topic to be on.
You can say that again. Personally, I find fishing to be quite relaxing and I enjoy my position in the food chain.
You are not talking about a moral code here you are still talking about a social contract. The answer to your questions in order are: I don't like it when it happens in my country and I don't like it when it happens in other countries. We should not. It is indifferent with respect to morality as it has nothing to do with morality.
So you dont like it, but you dont think its wrong?
Look at what your country's position is on "inherent rights". The US government under GWB has said that people who aren't US citizens (and even some of them if declared "enemy combatants") aren't entitled to what the civilized world considers basic human rights. Apparently might does make right if you are the US government. The US government thinks that what they are doing is morally right and many other people do not. Again, no well defined moral code. It is relative morality.
We are talking about two different things here. I think this is stemming from the use of the word "Rights" To me there are two different types of these there are "Rights" which I apply to the innocent. The innocent has the right, born into them, given by God, to not suffer for the evils perpatrated by others. This is why, when you see people being killed by an evil dictator, like the tens of thousands of people the Saddam Hussain killed, you feal bad. Its why you think somthing should be done.
Then there are other "Rights" that more and more people today think of as true rights but they are not. A better term for this word would be "Privilages" You do not have the right to free speach, you have the privilage of it. You do not have the right of free assembly you have the privilage of it. These are things given to you by the state. These are the rights you are speaking of.
The rights I am speaking of are, and the founding fathers put it very well, Life, Liberty, and Property. Of these the formost is Life. Second comes Liberty and last comes Property. Its Maslow's Pyrimid. (I am sure I spelled that wrong) The bottom, the foundation of his pirimid is security and safety. We have the right to safety. I beleive that this right was given to us by God. However, He also gave us the responsability to maintain it. He is not responsable for our security and safety, we are.
Now comes the question of Wars, like Iraq. It is true that our attacks have hurt the saftey of the people. The thing is, Saddam's regime hurt it 100 times more. Its as the saying goes, to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs. Wars are by nature, dangerous, the innocent and the evil die side by side. It is unfortunate but for evil to be destroyed this sort of thing happens. All death is unfortunate, even the death of the evil, ("For it is not His will that any should die and fall short of the Glory of God.) But that does not mean it is not neccesary. Wars are bloody, but as time has gone by and technology has advanced they have become less and less so. Think of how many civillians would have had to die if we tried this war with WW1 technology? No smart bombs, now covert ops, no GPS sattilite. Just men with guns and lots of them. Hundreds of thousands, not thousands would be the death toll. Millions even. Frankly it is quite amazing how few have died. But I am getting off topic.
Does this mean the ends justify the means? Sort of, but not really. I would say that if a governmental body has not done everything in its power to protect the lives of non combatants then they are responsable for those deaths. I have yet to see convincing evidence that GWB himself has failed in this. But again, totaly different topic.
It appears that you already answered your own question. People always want to improve their lot in life and it doesn't matter if they are at the top or the bottom of the economic heap. Are you suggesting that the absolute moral code is that you should improve your life at all cost?
The answer to all the "rights" arguments is all the same: rights are not morality, they are a socially constructed permissions.
Again, these are Privilages not Rights. The objective of furthering ones own self is part of human nature and has nothing to do with basic human rights. Living in a land where you are forced into poverty would only be a violation of human rights if that poverty was imposed by a government, and threatened your security. If the poverty is the result of personal short comings or shear circumstance then it is only a threat to privilages not rights. (God helps those who help themselves) If you got yourself into poverty then you have no one else to blame.
Here we are getting to something that might sound like an absolute but in all civilized countries we make allowances for different types of murder. Even as recently as 200 years ago in your country not all murder was even punished. A slave owner could kill one of his slaves and not go to jail for it. Social norms change as does the definition of murder.
There has always been a punishment for muder. It is the state's definition of it that changes. As you stated.
It came be because one of the features of humanity is that we have a greater degree of cooperation than other species. The idea of "fair" is not unique to humanity we just have a more evolved sense of what is fair. We decided that what was in the best interest of the group was for individuals to not kill each other. Those who did not "play well with others" were ostracized and had fewer opportunities to breed. A prime example of evolution in action.
But what about survival of the fittest? Usually, unless the person is stealthy about it, murder is usually perpatrated by the strong against the weak. Say Grok and Grook are having it out. Grok kills Grook. Survival of the fittest means Grok now gets a crack at the ladies that Grook left behind. Murder, in survival of the fittest, is the most efficient way to further your breeding potential. You see it all the time in the animal kingdom. Often a male wolf will kill the Alpha wolf and take his place, thusly enhancing his breeding potential.
But humans do it different. We would punish Grok for killing Grook and in many cases that punishment would be the death of Grok. How can this change take place? I think we started with it. I do beleive in some aspects of evolution but I dont think this sort of thing can evolve.
Also you stated the concept of "Fair" is not exclusive to humanity. I am unaware of this concept in any animal species, please be specific. Personally I would like to know, what animals have a concept of fair treatment?
That was my question to you. Outline a specific moral code that _EVERYONE_ would agree with. As far as a semblance of morality is concerned even monkeys have an idea of fairness. If you want details on this I would be happy to provide them.
You cant, but here is the thing. They dont have to like it. A murderer sure as hell does not like the punishment for murder. But just because he thinks he should get to live does not mean he should not still have to die.
I get the fealing our definition of fairness is aslo differing but I would like to hear this none the less. Monkeys and other higher animals are very good at seeing when things are unfair to themselves, what they have problems with is seeing things as unfair to others. This is not a problem for humans. We have a capacity for compasion that goes beyond instinct. We will sacrifice ourselves for complete strangers whos pain does not effect us. Animals do not.
That is an easy one, because you have been brought up to believe that it is wrong. Why are people so incensed by pornography in the US and not in Europe? Because the US culture tells its children that pornography is "immoral". (I would challange that, we are the epicenter of pornography)
Again, differences between privialges and rights. The thing about morality is, it truly is out of our hands. We can impose moral code all we want and we can make laws and teach our children to behave and people are still gonna missbehave. The viewing of pornography, in my opinion is not against the basics of moral code. Crimes that I put in that catagory include but are not limited too, murder, theft and rape. Lesser crimes that are not as consistant accross cultures are part of that code. That does not mean you arent going to hell for them. It just means you arent going to get your hand cut off for it.
On the subject of pornography, because it is such a good example. Tell me what is wrong? Is it the viewing of naked bodies? Or the viewing of naked bodies even though you know you arent supposed to? There is nothing wrong with seeing a naked woman. They dont have issues with pornography in many european countries because it just isnt an issue. Like I said, America is the epicenter for pornographic web sites. Look at countries like Germany. What we consider porn here is day time TV there. But there is still socially unnacceptable levels of it there. (There are some very sick sick sick things that come out of Germany... things I REALY dont want to get into)
Its a slippery slope. If we hold our standards higher our lows will be higher too. If we lower our standards then more and more things that would not be even thought of in the high standards society become more and more common place. Alcoholism is no where near as prevalent in european countries but dug use is alot more prevalent.
But this is off topic. This is an example of what you are talking about. These are standards set by society.
This is not the moral code I speak of.
It can and I explained some above. As far as murder is concerned even a lion is unlikely to stalk and kill its family but it will do so to the wildabeast.
Unlikely, but not unheard of.
Is this morality or just behavior which is good for the species?
You don't think humans do this? Even dolphins and monkeys will help out their elderly by bringing them food, "prosecute" offenders within their social circles and "punish" their youngsters for bad behavior.
Not true. Mothers of many species will willingly give their lives if they think it will let their children live.
This is an example of instictual behavior. When have we seen a bottle nosed dolfin protect a dolfin he has never met, a dolfin that is not a member of his pod, and dofin who's death would only effect him in positive ways. (IE less competition for food) Like I said before, if you know, PLEASE tell me I would like to see it.
The difference is humans have the ability for compasion that grows beyond thier social circles.
Yes but a good topic to be on.
You can say that again. Personally, I find fishing to be quite relaxing and I enjoy my position in the food chain.
You know, I think where the argument fails is that these anti fishing activist are mistaking the act of fishing and the act of catching. Catching is a rare skill that only a few posess. We go catching for food. We go fishing to relax. (I paint to relax but to each his own I guess)
So you dont like it, but you dont think its wrong?
Look at what your country's position is on "inherent rights". The US government under GWB has said that people who aren't US citizens (and even some of them if declared "enemy combatants") aren't entitled to what the civilized world considers basic human rights. Apparently might does make right if you are the US government. The US government thinks that what they are doing is morally right and many other people do not. Again, no well defined moral code. It is relative morality.
We are talking about two different things here. I think this is stemming from the use of the word "Rights" To me there are two different types of these there are "Rights" which I apply to the innocent. The innocent has the right, born into them, given by God, to not suffer for the evils perpatrated by others. This is why, when you see people being killed by an evil dictator, like the tens of thousands of people the Saddam Hussain killed, you feal bad. Its why you think somthing should be done.
Then there are other "Rights" that more and more people today think of as true rights but they are not. A better term for this word would be "Privilages" You do not have the right to free speach, you have the privilage of it. You do not have the right of free assembly you have the privilage of it. These are things given to you by the state. These are the rights you are speaking of.
The rights I am speaking of are, and the founding fathers put it very well, Life, Liberty, and Property. Of these the formost is Life. Second comes Liberty and last comes Property. Its Maslow's Pyrimid. (I am sure I spelled that wrong) The bottom, the foundation of his pirimid is security and safety. We have the right to safety. I beleive that this right was given to us by God. However, He also gave us the responsability to maintain it. He is not responsable for our security and safety, we are.
Now comes the question of Wars, like Iraq. It is true that our attacks have hurt the saftey of the people. The thing is, Saddam's regime hurt it 100 times more. Its as the saying goes, to make an omlette you have to break a few eggs. Wars are by nature, dangerous, the innocent and the evil die side by side. It is unfortunate but for evil to be destroyed this sort of thing happens. All death is unfortunate, even the death of the evil, ("For it is not His will that any should die and fall short of the Glory of God.) But that does not mean it is not neccesary. Wars are bloody, but as time has gone by and technology has advanced they have become less and less so. Think of how many civillians would have had to die if we tried this war with WW1 technology? No smart bombs, now covert ops, no GPS sattilite. Just men with guns and lots of them. Hundreds of thousands, not thousands would be the death toll. Millions even. Frankly it is quite amazing how few have died. But I am getting off topic.
Does this mean the ends justify the means? Sort of, but not really. I would say that if a governmental body has not done everything in its power to protect the lives of non combatants then they are responsable for those deaths. I have yet to see convincing evidence that GWB himself has failed in this. But again, totaly different topic.
It appears that you already answered your own question. People always want to improve their lot in life and it doesn't matter if they are at the top or the bottom of the economic heap. Are you suggesting that the absolute moral code is that you should improve your life at all cost?
The answer to all the "rights" arguments is all the same: rights are not morality, they are a socially constructed permissions.
Again, these are Privilages not Rights. The objective of furthering ones own self is part of human nature and has nothing to do with basic human rights. Living in a land where you are forced into poverty would only be a violation of human rights if that poverty was imposed by a government, and threatened your security. If the poverty is the result of personal short comings or shear circumstance then it is only a threat to privilages not rights. (God helps those who help themselves) If you got yourself into poverty then you have no one else to blame.
Here we are getting to something that might sound like an absolute but in all civilized countries we make allowances for different types of murder. Even as recently as 200 years ago in your country not all murder was even punished. A slave owner could kill one of his slaves and not go to jail for it. Social norms change as does the definition of murder.
There has always been a punishment for muder. It is the state's definition of it that changes. As you stated.
It came be because one of the features of humanity is that we have a greater degree of cooperation than other species. The idea of "fair" is not unique to humanity we just have a more evolved sense of what is fair. We decided that what was in the best interest of the group was for individuals to not kill each other. Those who did not "play well with others" were ostracized and had fewer opportunities to breed. A prime example of evolution in action.
But what about survival of the fittest? Usually, unless the person is stealthy about it, murder is usually perpatrated by the strong against the weak. Say Grok and Grook are having it out. Grok kills Grook. Survival of the fittest means Grok now gets a crack at the ladies that Grook left behind. Murder, in survival of the fittest, is the most efficient way to further your breeding potential. You see it all the time in the animal kingdom. Often a male wolf will kill the Alpha wolf and take his place, thusly enhancing his breeding potential.
But humans do it different. We would punish Grok for killing Grook and in many cases that punishment would be the death of Grok. How can this change take place? I think we started with it. I do beleive in some aspects of evolution but I dont think this sort of thing can evolve.
Also you stated the concept of "Fair" is not exclusive to humanity. I am unaware of this concept in any animal species, please be specific. Personally I would like to know, what animals have a concept of fair treatment?
That was my question to you. Outline a specific moral code that _EVERYONE_ would agree with. As far as a semblance of morality is concerned even monkeys have an idea of fairness. If you want details on this I would be happy to provide them.
You cant, but here is the thing. They dont have to like it. A murderer sure as hell does not like the punishment for murder. But just because he thinks he should get to live does not mean he should not still have to die.
I get the fealing our definition of fairness is aslo differing but I would like to hear this none the less. Monkeys and other higher animals are very good at seeing when things are unfair to themselves, what they have problems with is seeing things as unfair to others. This is not a problem for humans. We have a capacity for compasion that goes beyond instinct. We will sacrifice ourselves for complete strangers whos pain does not effect us. Animals do not.
That is an easy one, because you have been brought up to believe that it is wrong. Why are people so incensed by pornography in the US and not in Europe? Because the US culture tells its children that pornography is "immoral". (I would challange that, we are the epicenter of pornography)
Again, differences between privialges and rights. The thing about morality is, it truly is out of our hands. We can impose moral code all we want and we can make laws and teach our children to behave and people are still gonna missbehave. The viewing of pornography, in my opinion is not against the basics of moral code. Crimes that I put in that catagory include but are not limited too, murder, theft and rape. Lesser crimes that are not as consistant accross cultures are part of that code. That does not mean you arent going to hell for them. It just means you arent going to get your hand cut off for it.
On the subject of pornography, because it is such a good example. Tell me what is wrong? Is it the viewing of naked bodies? Or the viewing of naked bodies even though you know you arent supposed to? There is nothing wrong with seeing a naked woman. They dont have issues with pornography in many european countries because it just isnt an issue. Like I said, America is the epicenter for pornographic web sites. Look at countries like Germany. What we consider porn here is day time TV there. But there is still socially unnacceptable levels of it there. (There are some very sick sick sick things that come out of Germany... things I REALY dont want to get into)
Its a slippery slope. If we hold our standards higher our lows will be higher too. If we lower our standards then more and more things that would not be even thought of in the high standards society become more and more common place. Alcoholism is no where near as prevalent in european countries but dug use is alot more prevalent.
But this is off topic. This is an example of what you are talking about. These are standards set by society.
This is not the moral code I speak of.
It can and I explained some above. As far as murder is concerned even a lion is unlikely to stalk and kill its family but it will do so to the wildabeast.
Unlikely, but not unheard of.
Is this morality or just behavior which is good for the species?
You don't think humans do this? Even dolphins and monkeys will help out their elderly by bringing them food, "prosecute" offenders within their social circles and "punish" their youngsters for bad behavior.
Not true. Mothers of many species will willingly give their lives if they think it will let their children live.
This is an example of instictual behavior. When have we seen a bottle nosed dolfin protect a dolfin he has never met, a dolfin that is not a member of his pod, and dofin who's death would only effect him in positive ways. (IE less competition for food) Like I said before, if you know, PLEASE tell me I would like to see it.
The difference is humans have the ability for compasion that grows beyond thier social circles.
Yes but a good topic to be on.
You can say that again. Personally, I find fishing to be quite relaxing and I enjoy my position in the food chain.
You know, I think where the argument fails is that these anti fishing activist are mistaking the act of fishing and the act of catching. Catching is a rare skill that only a few posess. We go catching for food. We go fishing to relax. (I paint to relax but to each his own I guess)
Sicander said:
No, I'm pretty sure what Bob is saying is that he does believe it to be wrong. He's just not capable of demonstrating that it is inherently wrong in an objective sense. As a result, it is possible for people to have similarly valid but completely different opinions about what is right and what is wrong.
My response to this problem in my earlier post was to suggest that since no one moral code is demonstrably correct, we should choose between them on the basis of the goals we adopt moral codes to achieve. I think most of us can agree that the central goal of most human action is the survival and prosperity of our genome. That is, we should look to human health and happiness. Now, I can't prove the "objective" value of health and happiness, but since most of us do value them, our inter-subjective moral duty is to act in a way which maximizes them. The reason that the doctrine of human rights is such a powerful and convincing one the world over is that once adopted, it dramatically enhances human health and happiness.
To me there are two different types of these there are "Rights" which I apply to the innocent.[/quote]
Yes, the subjectivity of language can have that effect.
What about the accused? What about those like the Portlander who was held for three weeks as an enemy combatant without charge or access to a lawyer, only to be released later after it was determined that he had nothing to do with anything. If all it takes for our constitutional rights to be violated is that a member of the executive branch decrees us "enemy combatants," those rights don't mean much.
Moreover, denying rights to people we consider to be guilty is a little bit like putting the cart before the horse. Without allowing formal charges, trials, or findings of fact, we are in many cases disallowing the very finding of guilt that would justify our restriction of rights. No one is arguing that murderers should go free: only that the government needs to prove that someone is a murderer before they lock them up.
So then, why is Saddam getting a trial, with his own representation and legal protections, while many of his soldiers are held without charge?
That is not what our founding fathers believed. While I do think it is accurate to say that rights are, at least functionally, granted by the state, it is important to recognize that part of the power of the idea of human rights is that they are intrinsic to our humanity, and unalienable.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
That may not be exactly correct, as I typed it from memory. Our founding fathers believed that the rights you speak of were intrinsic to our humanity: an unalienable gift of divine providence.
Moreover, what I think you're talking about it Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I'm not sure that it's on point, as it is an evaluation of what Maslow believed to be key human psychological needs and their relative importance. Again, I'm about to do this from memory, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong. From bottom to top, the needs are:
Physical (food/water/shelter)
Security
Love/Belonging
Esteem
Cognition
Aesthetics
Self-Actualization
Transcendence
While I can see how the hierarchy might apply, I'm not sure how it might be relevant to the discussion of human rights, except maybe as a guide for understanding why they are important.
Fine. You believe that. But the Founders and I believe that he also gave us the right to liberty and to the autonomy to pursue happiness. Here we have come to an impass, because appeals to divine mandate lead ever thus.
Not since the institution of the no-fly zone. There hadn't been ethnic violence against the Kurds since the late eighties, largely because Saddam was unable to go after them after the first Gulf War. Saddam was contained: his ability to threaten his people was limited to the few he and his ilk brutalized and tortured directly. While this is certainly horrifying, it is not sufficient to justify a war. Even if it were, he wouldn't be at the top of the list of despots to crush.
Meanwhile, the opportunity-cost of troop deployment in Iraq was that we intervened too late in Liberia and not at all in Sudan, where real honest-to-goodness genocide is taking place. The people of the Darfur region of Sudan have the same right to live that you so eloquently extolled, and we aren't upholding it.
I understand your point, but that's a pretty callous metaphor.
Okay, but why this war, in this place, when more lives could be saved elsewhere? Why not Rwanda? Why not the Congo? Why not Sudan? If Maslow's hierarchy is right, the only things more important than safety are the basic physiological necessities of life: if we have a moral obligation to save the Iraqis from Saddam, why do we not have a moral obligation to save the Kenyans from tuberculosis? The Nigerians from starvation?
Relatively few civilians died in WWI. On the other hand, more soldiers died in it than any other war. The static nature of trench warfare and the non-existence of strategic bombing allowed civilians to stay out of harm's way. Consequently, the proportion of dead represented by civilians was much higher in this war than WWI. I think the comparison you mean to make is to WWII, when unguided strategic bombing came into its own. While slightly fewer soldiers died in that war, many many times more civilians did.
But then, if we didn't have modern technology, we simply wouldn't have intervened. It is only in the superpower era--where our technology has given us an unassailable advantage--that a doctine of military interventionism has even been feasible. It is precisely because we have the technology that intervention appears to be a reasonable option, so I'm not sure how any of this is relevant at all.
Indeed.
Once again, the Founders disagree.
Who do your children blame? And what recompense do they have? If it is moral to feed the hungry, why is it not a moral obligation? If it is a moral obligation to free people from military oppression, why is it not a moral obligation to free them from the terror of HIV? How, exactly, is a child born with HIV supposed to help himself? How, without access to prophylaxis, is a person in a country with a 1/3 infection rate supposed to avoid exposure to HIV? What about tuberculosis, which people catch through no fault of their own, but which can doom a family to starvation if it takes the main breadwinner? When it is within our power to prevent this, why are we not obligated to do so? Hundreds of millions around the world are afflicted with deadly conditions that have been cured in the industrialized world. Billions are starving in a world with an excess of food produced annually. If Maslow's hierarchy is the criterion for determining which things are god-given rights, and if physiological needs are more important than safety, then we have an even greater obligation to feed the hungry than to free the oppressed.
Because, after all, God has never changed His mind about who is worthy of death. I'm just going to go stone my neighbor to death for wearing cloth of two different fabrics. Be back in a second. Are you just not getting that the malleability of the definition of murder is exactly the kind of social construction of morality that we're talking about? You are literally conceding the validity of his example.
Mammals rarely if ever fight to the death when competing for mates. Usually they try to intimidate each other first, and only in a very few cases to they even end up having to fight. Generally speaking, the fights are short and and the loser retires before either is seriously hurt.
Wolfpacks are an interesting counterexample: death is usually the inevitable result of an alpha-status power struggle.
No we didn't. Gorillas that kill members of their troop are often themselves killed by the rest of the troop. Chimpanzees behave similarly. Additionally, Gorilla troops have been known to stage violent raids against human settlements in retaliation for the death of a member.
See above.
That's not even remotely close to what anyone here is saying.
Right, but when we discuss policy actions to be taken by a government, we need some kind of a clear standard that is not just determined by our fallible human opinions of what we think God would want. What Bob and I are saying is that no such standard really objectively exists (or at least, is truly knowable). What I am saying is that we should therefore look to the criterion of maximization of human health and welfare, since that is something that the vast majority of us value.
Tell me what, in particular, is wrong about murder. Why is it objectively wrong to kill someone for sport?
If we hold our standards too high, most of us will not live up to them. As a result, we will devalue the idea of moral perfection and choose to live a life of sin and crime. See, I can use the slippery slope fallacy too.
What is?
The most likely suspects in any human murder are close relations, friends, and family.
Only because of our capacity for consequential reasoning. We include a larger circle because our minds are capable of seeing the relationships we have with people we haven't even met. The greater an animal's capacity for this kind of thinking, the more likely they are to demonstrate this type of behavior.
Fishing is not torture. Putting underwear on a prisoner's head is not torture either. Eating chocolate cake isn't a sin.
Sawing off an innocent victim's head with a rusty knife, yelling Alla Akbar is both torture and sin.
What the PETA nuts and others are doing by equating fishing with torture is to trivialize genuine torture. Meat is not murder. Steak dinners are not Holocausts-on-a-plate. The true Holocaust is real and happened under the auspices of a brutal left-wing dictator who was the forerunner of the recently toppled Saddam Hussein.
Think about this every time some lunatic from PETA tells you fishing is torture.
Sawing off an innocent victim's head with a rusty knife, yelling Alla Akbar is both torture and sin.
What the PETA nuts and others are doing by equating fishing with torture is to trivialize genuine torture. Meat is not murder. Steak dinners are not Holocausts-on-a-plate. The true Holocaust is real and happened under the auspices of a brutal left-wing dictator who was the forerunner of the recently toppled Saddam Hussein.
Think about this every time some lunatic from PETA tells you fishing is torture.
Cooperation and fairness
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html
To get back to the topic at hand I really liked Jatkins' question about murder.
Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?
Since Jatkins covered most of the morality points I will just address this point because you asked for specifics. I would be more than happy to provide specifics. Here is a recent study about Capuchin monkeys:Sicander said:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html
As far as "survival of the fittest" is concerned that is not actually mentioned in evolution anywhere. It was a phrase coined to make fun of Darwin by some of his contemporaries, much like the "Big Bang" was coined to make fun of the expanding universe. What evolution actually says is that those that pass on their genes also pass on the traits which led them to the ability to pass on their genes. Those who are more able to pass on their genes have more offspring and those traits end up being favored in the population. For example the 300 pound woman in a trailer park feeding Doritos to her 7 children is more "fit" than I who will never have 7 children. Anyway, evolution in many cases has favored those animals whose brains were wired for cooperation rather than just being out for themselves.
To get back to the topic at hand I really liked Jatkins' question about murder.
As far as morality given to us by God is concerned I would present to you the Euthyphro dilemma (click):Jatkins said:
Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?
Have anyone seen there new commercial. There probably the ones beating on the animals they show on the **** thing.
While it is true that the Nazi party had the word "socialist" in its official party name, Hitler was not a left-wing dictator. He was a right-wing dictator. Here are several warrants for this:Sailor Kenshin said:
1) Nazism shared corporatist economic principles with Mussolini's fascism. That is to say that the economic arrangement priveleged existing successful corporations by granting them increasingly lucrative government contracts and bestowing ever greater official powers on corporate officers. In return, these corporations produced what the government wanted. This is a nationalistic/reactionary means of economic organization, not a revolutionary/communistic one. A left-wing dictator would have simply dispossessed the entire upper class and overthrown the existing corporate structures to make way for an unmediated government control of production. What Hitler did was functionally and philosophically the opposite of that.
2) Nazi rhetoric was predicated upon three main ideological components: The reclamation of Germany's glory (nationalism), the supremacy of the Aryan race (racism), and an externalization of all blame for Germany's problems (otherization).
I'll discuss each of these, explain why they are right-wing, and provide their liberal corrolaries:
Nationalism is a right-wing view of the relationship between the individual and the state. It is born of reactionary appeals to tradition, long-held cultural norms, and the "good old days." As a concept, nationalism is the idea that our culture, our traditions, and our values are perpetually under threat by others, and that we must constantly fight to preserve them. Our duty, therefore, is to do whatever we must to protect our way of life against the evil forces arrayed against us. Nationalist governments intentionally evoke images of the past to justify their actions. The left-wing corrolary of nationalism is solidarity. This is the concept that our duty to the government is derived from our responsibility to each other. Solidarity appeals to class tensions, and seeks to overthrow traditional norms entirely. The revolutionary left-wing does not believe in the "good-old days" and seeks to completely annihilate all but the most utilitarian of cultural traditions. Governments based on this principle intentionally reject the past as valueless.
Racism is right-wing. It is based on an appeal to racial pride and fear of that which is different from us. The idea of universal liberation (the leftist revolutionary philosophy) is inherently inconsistent with racist ideology. The left-wing corrolary to racism is "right thought" which persecutes on the basis of the perceived betrayal of "revolutionary" principles.
Finally, the Nazis blamed the French, the British, and the Jews for all of their problems, rather than critically examining the governmental blunders that led them to their fall. This allowed them to re-adopt the very nationalist traditions that led them into the first world war. The revolutionary leftist corrolary to rightist otherization is class warfare, which is the idea that capitalism is entrenched by all traditions, norms, and governmental structures, and that therefore they must all be abolished.
3) The very first group the Nazis brutalized were the socialists and communists.
The "right" and the "left" are hard to neatly categorize, but the most consistent definitions of those terms recognize the extreme right-wing as reactionary and the extreme left-wing as revolutionary. The centralization of government power does not make something left-wing since it was left-wing liberalism that overthrew right-wing monarchy (look up the very source of the terms "left" and "right" wing in British history). What makes an ideology leftist or rightist is its sentiment. Thus totalitarianism may be rightist or leftist: it is the ideological justification that makes the difference.
