Things can be legal, and still immoral. Just like things can be illegal, but still moral.
Law and morality are two separate things. They are not bound by eachother.
I personally don’t think it’s moral for a 40 year old to go and pick up 18 year olds. But it’s perfectly legal. My opinion of the morality of it, is not going to change the legal status.
The nation of your parent is responsible for your nationality. I’ve said it numerous times by now. Are you not following along?
You are correct. It was not a Human Rights Violation because that did not exist as the time. That doesn’t make it moral. That doesn’t make it ok.
Your whole thing seems to be if something is legal, it’s also moral. Why do you think that has to be the case?
You do realise that you’re literally (and I don’t use that word carelessly) the person who is unable to distinguish morality from legality.
Your reading comprehension is lacking if you think I’m failing to distinguish between legality and morality.
You’re failing basic comprehension that human rights are a concept that exists outside of the law. The law referring to human rights does not make the law the arbiter of human rights.
Read a book, and think about where you went wrong that you’re arguing that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
I get that you think you’re being pedantic about what you think is a legal term being misused. You’re not. You’re being an asshole about an ethics term being used properly in a context you were ignorant of.
You have demonstrated that you cannot distinguish the two.
Did you know the Holocaust was perfectly legal? And, since you say we didn’t even have human rights before then, just the whim of the ruler, it wasn’t even a human rights violation to gas children and burn their bodies!
Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?
That’s your quote. “Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?”. That shows you are unable to distinguish law and moral, since you seem to think everything legal has to be moral.
You can try to move the goalpost as much as you wish. It’s still not going to change the facts of what Human Rights are. The only thing you’re showcasing is your ignorance. And in saying things which you do not understand, you undermine what actual Human Rights violations encompass.
I cannot face palm hard enough. You actually lack reading comprehension that hard.
That section does not imply that I think morality and the law are identical. That’s me believing that you do, and making an assertion that your beliefs would lead you to the indefensible position that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
Also before I realized that you were being pedantic in ignorance, as revealed by you defending the notion that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
I choose to interpret that you’re ignorant of philosophy, and now also not fluent enough in English to actually properly engage in this type of conversation, rather than think you’re a person who sees nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
In summary: “human rights” are a philosophical and ethical concept discussed under that and other names for thousands of years. That concept has clear implications for the law, and so the term is also used in a legal context. Most people refer to the philosophical context because morality is above the law.
Seeing as I no longer have confidence in the ability of this discussion to go anywhere due to communication impediments, I’m done. Have a good day.
I did not once suggest that what is legal, must be moral. That is your assumption. Not mine.
Why would you think I see nothing wrong with the holocaust? I stated in no uncertain terms I find it immoral and not ok. That is the opposite of not seeing anything wrong. And you have the gall to critique my reading comprehension…
“Human Rights” is a Declaration of rights made by the UN. Your personal opinion of how you want them to be perceived. Does not alter what they are, how they came to be, or what they encompass.
Most people refer to the philosophical context because morality is above the law.
That is a wild statement. Morality is definitely not above the law. In some very religious countries, morality is law, but that is as far as it will go.
What basis do you have for proclaiming “most people” refer to the “philosophical context”? You pulled it out of your ass.
You turn to insults because you lack the education to make proper arguments. And just like the trumpers, you cannot admit you’ve been wrong, so you double down no matter how silly it gets. Good luck with that.
Things can be legal, and still immoral. Just like things can be illegal, but still moral.
Law and morality are two separate things. They are not bound by eachother.
I personally don’t think it’s moral for a 40 year old to go and pick up 18 year olds. But it’s perfectly legal. My opinion of the morality of it, is not going to change the legal status.
The nation of your parent is responsible for your nationality. I’ve said it numerous times by now. Are you not following along?
You are correct. It was not a Human Rights Violation because that did not exist as the time. That doesn’t make it moral. That doesn’t make it ok.
Your whole thing seems to be if something is legal, it’s also moral. Why do you think that has to be the case?
You do realise that you’re literally (and I don’t use that word carelessly) the person who is unable to distinguish morality from legality.
Your reading comprehension is lacking if you think I’m failing to distinguish between legality and morality.
You’re failing basic comprehension that human rights are a concept that exists outside of the law. The law referring to human rights does not make the law the arbiter of human rights.
Read a book, and think about where you went wrong that you’re arguing that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
I get that you think you’re being pedantic about what you think is a legal term being misused. You’re not. You’re being an asshole about an ethics term being used properly in a context you were ignorant of.
You have demonstrated that you cannot distinguish the two.
That’s your quote. “Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?”. That shows you are unable to distinguish law and moral, since you seem to think everything legal has to be moral.
You can try to move the goalpost as much as you wish. It’s still not going to change the facts of what Human Rights are. The only thing you’re showcasing is your ignorance. And in saying things which you do not understand, you undermine what actual Human Rights violations encompass.
I cannot face palm hard enough. You actually lack reading comprehension that hard.
That section does not imply that I think morality and the law are identical. That’s me believing that you do, and making an assertion that your beliefs would lead you to the indefensible position that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
Also before I realized that you were being pedantic in ignorance, as revealed by you defending the notion that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
I choose to interpret that you’re ignorant of philosophy, and now also not fluent enough in English to actually properly engage in this type of conversation, rather than think you’re a person who sees nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
In summary: “human rights” are a philosophical and ethical concept discussed under that and other names for thousands of years. That concept has clear implications for the law, and so the term is also used in a legal context. Most people refer to the philosophical context because morality is above the law.
Seeing as I no longer have confidence in the ability of this discussion to go anywhere due to communication impediments, I’m done. Have a good day.
I did not once suggest that what is legal, must be moral. That is your assumption. Not mine.
Why would you think I see nothing wrong with the holocaust? I stated in no uncertain terms I find it immoral and not ok. That is the opposite of not seeing anything wrong. And you have the gall to critique my reading comprehension…
“Human Rights” is a Declaration of rights made by the UN. Your personal opinion of how you want them to be perceived. Does not alter what they are, how they came to be, or what they encompass.
That is a wild statement. Morality is definitely not above the law. In some very religious countries, morality is law, but that is as far as it will go.
What basis do you have for proclaiming “most people” refer to the “philosophical context”? You pulled it out of your ass.
You turn to insults because you lack the education to make proper arguments. And just like the trumpers, you cannot admit you’ve been wrong, so you double down no matter how silly it gets. Good luck with that.