Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: "John Brockbank" <wagley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:26:41 -0000
>> Any person who is a humanist will agree that they should behave as they
>> would wish others to behave, and furthermore, they would say that is what
>> others should do as well, within a reasonable range of behaviour.
< That could be anything. By that argument Osama is a humanist. >
My understanding of Osama Bin Laden (of course merely obtained from news
media assertions that he is (or was) an encourager of suicide bombers.
I do not accept that you as a fairly well educated person really consider
that is acting within a reasonable range of behaviour. I was not defining
humanism, I was arguing with your statement on the lines of suggesting that
human rights do not exist and that humanists can not provide a rational
argument for human rights. In short, the rational argument is that human
rights exist because we say they do. I doubt that a judge and jury would
accept a contention that the right to liberty of a person you had kidnapped
was merely a subjective opinion.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- References:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Lucien Saumur
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: David V.
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: David V.
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: John Brockbank
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- Prev by Date: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by Date: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Previous by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|