Post-Enlightenment Thought

example? i’d rather argue the concrete than the theoretical

anyway this still sounds like philosophy grads circle jerking one another. fuck off to your ivy league undergrad homework help sessions

If you have the right to kill someone in the event that killing them is the only reasonably sure way to protect yourself, that person cannot have an INALIENABLE right to life. People forfeit certain rights through the violation of the rights of others. This is also why things like imprisonment aren't inherently unjust.

If you don't have a consistent ethical framework, your political principles, and by extention political policies, have no foundation.

okay, fine, but this is abstracted BS you only envounter in summer classes taught by shit-tier TAs. how about you give a real example?

well i do. you’re the one floating nebulous shit

Attached: I am so smrt.png (898x790, 279K)

Nigger what? I literally did. If the right to life is inalienable, killing in self defense cannot be justified, since it would violate the other person's right to life. Since that's obviously an unacceptable conclusion, rights cannot be inalienable. This is borne out in legal systems. No legal system treats rights as inalienable, if they did then they couldn't enforce laws.

I feel like he did give a reasonable example right off the bat. Either way though, what he says makes sense. Original question was around whether or not we could even consider Western society to have a unified definition of what constitutes harm. I don't believe we can have a fully unified definition, only partial.

The closest thing seems to be that harm means violating rights, but the problem is the disagreement over what rights people have.

I agree. To bring it back to the "original" original question, how do you combat the inherent disagreement in your conversations with those who would define what rights people have differently?

>how do you combat the inherent disagreement in your conversations with those who would define what rights people have differently
omg some serious philosophy major shitposting

if people disagree with me about "rights", i fucking point to the constitution and the bill of rights

your shit is so weak, go fuck off back to your useless books

>i fucking point to the constitution and the bill of rights
1. He's not talking about the US
2. The constitution acknowledges rights, it doesn't give them
3. The constitution can be changed

My country is a little different than yours, and with bills like c-16 and motions like m-103 it is logical and appropriate for me to have discussions with other people about ideas.

Attached: just a dogwood .jpg (1024x731, 289K)

1. what is your point?
2. you've given no concrete examples
3. prove to me this isn't a philosophy-major circle jerk

3. >anyone attempting to improve themselves is a self pleasuring ape

i believe in self improvement, whole-heartedly.

but this thread is full of abstract BS that only ivy-league humanities-major douches of 24 years shill

I mean, I appreciate the ivy-league comment, I'll take it as a compliment even though it's far off.
But seriously, I'm just trying to talk about ideas, most people can't hold a conversation without realizing where they are coming from, or even why they think what they do.
I want to help other people think, so I have to make sure I am as well, and make sure I'm doing it thoroughly. Otherwise I will be guilty of the sophistry you initially proclaimed

Easy... a fucking border, shit stain.

well, if you are doing it honestly, then all power to you

i just need some more powerful argumentation, beyond "hurr durr jargon jargon rights legislation" vapid shit to convince me that my worldview needs questioning.

i have an extremely cynical worldview, after a-frew-months-shy of 30, being a physicist and all. if you guys want to enlighten me on philosophy, you'll have to do a whole lot better than this.

desu I was hop[ing others were going to do that for me :P I got the cynicism through the screen haha. If you please, I would enjoy it if you felt comfortable to share your worldview. Or at least a piece more than you already have. I'm looking to grow

i believe in equality, justice, and democracy.

judge each man on his own merits

that's about it

Attached: innovation.jpg (1400x786, 485K)

meritocracy is huge for me. Love that. thanks for sharing.

Attached: 16%20(1).jpg (600x400, 30K)

>I believe in abstract concepts defined by man
>but if you want me to stick to these concepts the you’re going to have to do better, fucking philosophy shits
What’s it like being a tard?

Share and get attacked. I guess it s the way it is

Attached: new challenger.gif (500x281, 563K)

not following your fallacious argument...

these "abstract" concepts are the foundation of america. justice and democracy are real and powerful.

Being the foundation of the country doesn't make them abstract you absolute retard. Abstract does not mean bad or useless.

>doesn't make them abstract
*doesn't make them not abstract

i’m not disagreeing with you at all. these concepts are not only real, but also the powerful underpinnings of what makes america the best. the only people i disagree with are the tards who downplay these fundamental concepts