FAMILY IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

One of the eeriest books ever read and movie ever seen was called BRAVE NEW WORLD written by Aldous Huxley. Please click:

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley - review | Books | guardian.co.uk

www.guardian.co.uk › Culture › Books › Teen booksCached

29 Mar 2012 – Brave New World is a classic - it is a dystopian novel similar in

theme to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. I was recommended to read this ...

It told of a new world controlled by a junta of people who dominated human life that was categorized into 5 groups.

They controlled families. There were no mothers and fathers. Babies were born in test tubes. They were raised to the dictates of the new world order.

Their occupations and life style were governed by the government. There was no right of protest. Please click:

A BRAVE NEW WORLD

This book written in 1932 was based in part on the Russian Revolution. There were still 7 years to go before Hitler and the Nazi party took control of Germany.

The book reminds us of the New World Order being set up by world gays and lesbians. It will be based in the United Nations of New York and lay down laws to be obeyed by the nations of the world.

The New World Order will be run by gays, lesbians and paedophiles and set down the sexual laws of the human race. Family will be abolished.

There will be no mothers’ and fathers’ rights only responsibilities. There will be same-sex marriage and children to take part in paedophile sex.

The world is being tricked by gays and lesbians crying about discrimination and stigma. They plead that they have the right to love someone of the same sex. They have the right to fist the person they love. (sob). Please click: (sob)

FISTING IS GAY LOVE-MAKING

WOMEN FIST OTHER WOMEN

But the hidden agenda, particularly among the activists is far more evil and vicious. They plan to take our families and remove parents rights. The agenda is paedophile. Please click:

OUR KIDS BELONG TO THE STATE

PRESSURE FOR UN ON GAY AND LESBIAN AGENDA

HUMAN RIGHTS WITHOUT MORALITY

The age of consent will be lowered based on the childrens’ sexual knowledge that will be laid down in the school curriculum. It may be the age of consent will be lowered to 11 years old.

Human rights without morality become human wrongs

GANJIKI D WAYNE | Supported by the Bea Amaya Writing Fellowship

BESIDES CORRUPTION, HUMAN RIGHTS in Papua New Guinea is the talk of the town.

All PNG laws must include some declaration regarding possible infringement of constitutional rights—our articulation of human rights.

Newspaper headlines scream stories of abuse every day. Even the conversations of ordinary people are filled with concerns for human rights.

But have we ever stopped to really ask ourselves: what exactly is a human right? Why have human rights become such a prolific concern in the world today?

They have become the yardstick by which we measure the correctness and propriety of our actions or inactions: like a new measure of moral uprightness.

Let’s pause to think of a few things. Where does this concern for rights come from? What is its fundamental purpose? If we didn’t have such concerns would it matter? What is its fundamental basis?

Human rights assume there is a certain value of a human being. A value that makes people worthy of the privileges that we believe are due to us.

Just like any product of value is given some care and protection, human rights are the care and protection given to human beings because they are human.

So the question is: Is a human being really worth it? How do we determine the worth of a person?

Is that worth dependent on the usefulness of a human being to the world? Or does that worth come about by us just being, by merely existing, by being human? Do all humans have an inherent worth or value?

Some worldviews cannot explain the original worth of human beings.

Especially an evolutionary Darwinist view, which believes people evolved over millions of years from an organic soup. Therefore a pragmatic view must be taken.

A pragmatic view is one in which a position is taken because it’s practical to do so; not necessarily because it is true. It is forward looking; not necessarily historical.

We must assign human dignity because it seems like a good starting point if we are to make the world livable. If there is no concept of our human worth we will have a chaotic world. No one would respect each other. We wouldn’t have a valid reason to be good to each other.

This view requires us to impute value where there isn’t any. Over many years this idea has been promulgated so much so that people have come to believe in human dignity without even questioning whether there is a basis for such dignity.

On the other hand you have some worldviews that suggest that man is not just flesh and blood and bones. But is a created being endowed with natural inherent value. One such worldview is the Judeo-Christian worldview: man is a creature of a divine God who placed in the man His own image.

By doing so God imputed a certain value (human dignity) to man. From that viewpoint people would also ascribe human rights; not just because it is a good idea for a harmonious world.

But man’s value inherently and historically exists. It is a reality. The notion of human rights allow for man’s God-ordained human dignity to be protected. I would call this view—for lack of a creative word and only in the context of this essay—the “creationist” view.

Other worldviews probably float around these two positions. Even some extremes. But let’s leave it there.

Notice both the pragmatic approach and the creationist view can lead to a firm belief in/for human rights. But both start off at completely opposite points. One believing in man being a divine creature and the other that it’s an animal evolved into sophistication over time.

I think it’s important to revisit the fundamental purpose of human rights in order to guide its advance. Otherwise we are left with a concept that has no roots, and will therefore have no boundaries. Even to an extent that the very purpose (protection of human dignity) is lost completely.

We see all around us people who, in pursuit of the full utilisation of their “rights”, do things to themselves (and many times to others) that undermine their own humanness. We see a man who locks his daughter in a dungeon as a sex-slave for years. We see people paint and pierce their bodies to replicate animals, in the name of freedom of expression.

Pornography is on the rise for the same reason. Sexual freedom has reduced the value of family to a trivial concern, and is attempting to promote homosexual partnership to a par with traditional monogamy marriages.

Abortion is on the rise because we don’t know how to tell which point a human being is a person worthy of the right to life. Millions of others starve because corrupt governments don’t care. And the list is endless. Inhuman.

That is the term we use to describe atrocities against people, right?

The correct question is: What is a human? This question is fundamental. Because if the purpose of human rights is to protect human dignity, and human dignity is only imputed on humans, then it is immensely critical that know what we are.

Put simply, we can’t protect human dignity if we don’t know what a human is—because knowing what a human is helps us to appreciate that value of that being. If we don’t have an answer we lose any sensible rationale for any protection and the concept of human rights, left to pragmatism, becomes the tool by which human dignity is attacked and destroyed. (I think of the poor people that turn their bodies into carvings and mannequins).

The world's leading humanly-authored human rights documents (the American Declaration of Independence, UN Universal Declaration of Human rights, Magna Carta, French Declaration) each make an assumption: man has a certain value.

And not just that. Man is worth more than animals and plants, and worth more than the things that man himself creates. Those documents assume something else: that all man are equally valuable and equally worthy of certain rights that cannot generally be taken away.

As long as you are a human you have those rights. So much so that the violation of a human right is considered a violation of the humanness of the victim. And it’s not just the victim but the perpetrator’s humanness is called into question. Inhuman.

But why? What is the basis for such assumptions in those documents? Let me borrow a psalm to re-contextualize the question. What is man? That we are mindful of ourselves? That we consider ourselves above the beasts of the land, the birds in the air and the fish in the sea?

Are we not but flesh and blood—as equally expendable as the animal? Some think so (and some act so), except we have superior intelligence and a conscience—a sense for morality. What gives us claim to a list of privileges that arise only because we can understand and insist on them? 

If a human is a highly evolved animal, there is no basis for human dignity—except a pragmatic one. If there is no basis for human dignity, there is no basis for human rights—for we are all animals. There is no basis for treating each other equal—for some animals are stronger and worth more than others.

What makes us equally equal if we are evolved from organic soup?

We can argue about living peaceably but if some human beings are stronger than others and would live any way they please at the expense of the weaker, then so be it. There is absolutely no basis to protect human rights.

So while we can push for a pragmatic approach, we can’t justifiably oppose those who reject that approach and go on abusing human rights. One can choose not to subscribe to human rights and we, by being merely pragmatic, have no basis to try to change their mind on the matter.

On the other hand, if man is created by God and has been imputed with a divine value, then we have every reason to protect human dignity and therefore there is a valid basis to promote and protect human rights.

But there is a further implication. If God has made us then He must know how we are to live. Just as a manufacturer knows the complete method its product is to be used, so the Creator would know.

And He would have set some standards for us. And if we live outside of those standards we would be abusing ourselves—just as any product used outside of its design and purpose results in abuse (improper use). The Creator set in His prized creatures’ hearts, a notion of morality—His standards.

When we, in pursuit of human rights, act outside of those standards, we abuse ourselves. It is for this reason that people who hold the creationist view will not be silent when people do what is morally wrong in the name of human rights.

They will not be silent where homosexual practice and abortion and euthanasia and pornography and prostitution and racism are concerned. These practices violate the designs of the Creator.

They violate the value and dignity of the creature. And as people who understand that fundamental value they will not stand and watch a fellow human abuse himself or others, even if that person is convinced in his or her mind that they can do what they do. They must speak the truth.

Ungirded by morality, human rights becomes an open license to do anything.

To an extent that the purpose of human rights itself—the protection of human dignity—is defeated completely.

Furthermore, one cannot remain a consistent advocate for human rights if one does not subscribe to a higher standard (morality) to guide it. For instance, one may insist on the right to life for all humans. And also the right to choose.

But proponents of abortion would have to exalt a despondent mother’s right to choose above an unborn baby’s right to life. The abortion problem gets even more complicated with arguments moving from the unborn baby’s status as a human being, to whether it is a person at all.

So now proponents of abortion argue that since the baby is not a person it is not yet privileged with the right to life. But wait. The right to life is not the right of a person; it’s a right of a human being. We’ve unwittingly given ourselves a new set of measurements: person’s rights. Problematic isn’t it.

When we have no standard of what’s right and wrong, anything is acceptable. Human rights itself will die without a moral foundation. Indeed it seems to be heading that way.

in Comment & opinion | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks Martyn.
I thoroughly enjoyed the arguments with Ganjiki.
Everyone believes in something, even atheists.
Some consider God to be the only standard. That's alright. But I disagree with pushing beliefs onto another person. It get's quiet messy.
I think that was why we agreed to the basic human rights. But, problems arising with our legal interpretations get mixed up with moral questions, as in abortions.
Thank goodness/God for the current status quo where people actually have some freedom to decide what they want to do with their lives according to the morals they adhere to. The freedom to do this also comes with responsibility.
In the end I think that may be why a good God would give us free will - so that we could choose and be responsible for the consequences.

Posted by: Michael Dom | 14 December 2012 at 01:00 PM

Ganjiki takes the fundamentalist Christian and of course the Catholic Church view that opposes what they describe as relativism thats prevalent in modern society. These groups prefer a more absolute world view where there is one set of absolutes.
But of course Christianity itself has been progressive and the two Testaments are testament to that.
The fact that there are so many Denominations of Christianity also underscores a certain relativism and defeats notions of absolutism.
Islam to has different intepretations and so have other major religions.
Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies not just to political power but to every other discharge of power including that of moral authority.
The limitation of political power from absolute monarchy to democracy has led to great progress. Likewise, the limitation of the Pope's absolute power over spiritual affairs has led to muxh freedom.
Just as the day gives way to the night and life to death, there are natural limitations. In the discourse of human rights the limitation was set about by Jesus and that is, "do not do unto others what you do not wat them to do unto you".
Echoing John Locke and the American Declaration of Independence, all human beings are equal and have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the limitation of not infringing upon their fellow human beings.
Whilst there is a role for a higher power to intervene in conflicts between humans, it is not jusfiable that such power restricts the freedom of individiuals if their actions do not iinfringe on other people's rights.
In your example of abortion, no one has the right to interfere with a woman if she chooses to make a decision concerning her own body. Whilst I get the point about the rights of the unborn, the unborn is a function of the woman's body and dependent entirely on that woman. What the woman does, will not infringe the rights of another member of society.

Posted by: Martyn Namorong | 14 December 2012 at 10:48 AM

Thanks for the numbered points Michael. I’ll try to respond summarily to each of them.
1. It’s probably an easy escape to say he was insane. But he was not. He was a man convinced in his mind of a certain course of action. According to many on your side of the fence who say that truth is what you make of it, what you believe, then he was validly believing what he believed to be true right? But then, he wasn’t the only one. Four other officially atheistic regimes were also responsible for the elimination of millions of people.
2. Firstly, if there is a God his existence is not dependent on the beliefs of Christians. Our understanding of Him over time is a completely natural process of learning and being revealed His truth.
3. That’s what you believe. It may not be true. What you and I believe about morality may be quite opposite. So we cannot both be right at the same time. Your paradigm of how morality came about may not be sustainable at all.
4. Sorry my bad. That “creed” was written by Steve Turner, and English Journalist who realised the difficulty of subscribing to the humanistic viewpoint where there’s no fundamental point of reference for truly identifying good/right vs bad/wrong.
5. “By this argument a person may also choose not to do the will of God. That happens a lot too doesn't it?” Yes. In face it happens all the time. That’s not parallel to what I was saying about naturalistic thought.
Anyway, there are certain assumptions that perhaps you and I agree:
1. Human Rights protection/advocacy is generally a good thing.
2. Morality is recognised by all man.
However we disagree on the origin of that morality. And its volatility. Perhaps I shall explore that in another piece.
In response to the other comments, I must say gentlemen that I find it quite disappointing that my point has been grossly missed. I say again, nowhere in my piece do I say that morality only exists within a “religious framework”. Yet that seems to be the “point” being responded to. But I do say that morality comes from God (albeit through His Word or in built conscience in man). I don’t equate God with religion. But I guess I expect that kind of conclusion from people who don’t have a concept of God.
Like I said, I guess I’ll have to discuss morality itself in a later piece if PNG Attitude would let me. I do enjoy the diverse responses.
_________
You'd be most welcome, Ganjiki - KJ

Posted by: Ganjiki D Wayne | 14 December 2012 at 10:41 AM

I follow Christianity but I feel that my basis of morality lies in something other than the Ten Commandments and/or the bible itself.
My sense of morality arises from fear and compassion. Fear of harming others and myself and compassion (wari/sori) for others.
But the question that has always been bugging me is this: does a person surrender their own human rights when they impinge on another person’s rights?
For example, does a cold blooded murder have the right to life when he/she has denied that very right to the other person?

Posted by: David Kitchnoge | 13 December 2012 at 07:54 PM

By that reasoning Colin we'd also have to drop any discussion about politics, which enlivens PNG Attitude no end.
However, I suspect that arguing with both religious and political zealots is a waste of time.
I'm like Keith, I sat down and tried to rationalise the concept of gods and religions at an early age and decided that, on balance, the secular view made a lot more sense.
I was a lot older before I did the same thing with politics and decided that the apolitical view was the way to go.
Nowadays I simply find the antics of both schools of thought mildly amusing.
I've even given up the idea of being buried with a baseball bat just in case I'm wrong.
However, I do agree with you that it might be a good idea to drop the subject before it gets out of control.
_________
All is under control. Bex, kapti and lie downs all round - KJ

Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 13 December 2012 at 05:37 PM

C'mon! I just googled this Madang University where many of the commenters of this blog have a say.
"Divine Word University is a national Catholic university in Papua New Guinea. It is one of the newest tertiary institutions in the country. It was established as a university by an Act of Parliament in 1996. The university is ecumenical and coeducational, and is under the leadership of the Divine Word Missionaries."
Now if I learnt one thing in life in the hospitality industry, religious discussions are a "no no" in bars/bistros and restaurants, as is politics. If you want a brawl either one of these will quickly bring it on.
So please drop any more on this subject. I am a Catholic and proud to be one.
I judge people not on religion but by character.
It is contentious to the extreme.
__________
PNG Attitude delights in hosting the discussions that old fashioned Australians would hate to have at the dinner table - politics, religion, sex, slavery, cannibalism... Mipela stap isi - KJ

Posted by: Colin Huggins | 13 December 2012 at 04:58 PM

I can’t resist throwing my two penneth into this maelstrom of ponderings about human behaviour and enforced moral codes in particular.
Whenever someone starts drawing a line in the sand it stands to reason that someone else may become offended if they regard the sand as their own stamping ground.
The claim many seem to make is that an organised religion provides a moral and ethical basis for humans to follow and without which, we are devoid of any morals at all.
Given that most religions have evolved over time and are the distilled essence of many people’s views, if one chooses to say the end result is ‘god’s will’, it seems that those who do are demonstrating an adherence to their faith in the humanity that are claiming to transcribe ‘god’s will’.

In regard to Christianity, or in fact any organised religion, the defining proof of whether an action is either good or evil is in the eye of the beholder.
If one chooses to adhere to a strict code of ethics or morals, this code may be totally unacceptable to others.
Look at the Japanese code of Bushido. Look at the logic in olden days in some areas of PNG where one twin was killed to help the mother look after and bring up the other.

Esoteric discussion is indeed useful to help us all determine what we will decide to follow. It’s not helpful when it stifles all debate or is clearly aimed at excluding free thought as were the burning of heretics by both Catholics and Protestants a few hundred years ago.
At the risk of upsetting a few, anyone who claims they can interpret ‘god’s will’ is demonstrably maintaining a position that has yet to be substantiated.
They are actually enacting their ‘follower’s will’ since that is what is axiomatically the case.

Posted by: Paul Oates | 13 December 2012 at 04:53 PM

Is morality derived from religion or is it that religion was born from a pre-existing moral sense?
I've often wondered on what basis a person can make judgements between competing religions. How do you decide which is more 'moral' - say between Halakha, Canon law, Karma and Sharia?
Surely it can be argued that it is because you base your judgement on some existing moral sense about which religion most closely matches your intrinsic sense of what is right or wrong.
Early examples of this pre-date all existing mainstream religions (eg. the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu).
Or maybe most people just follow the way they were brought up and choosing your religion is a bit of a western luxury.

Posted by: Peter Kranz | 13 December 2012 at 04:05 PM

5) In regard to your point "that the pragmatic approach cannot argue against people who choose not to have any concern for human rights I had countered that "adhering to pragmatism does not mean 'doing whatever --- ---- we like'".
By this argument a person may also choose not to do the will of God. That happens a lot too doesn't it?
Here at last lies the destination for a circumnavigated path; free will.
Some say humans have it because 'I think therefore I am' others sat God granted it to us. We can't disprove either notion.

Posted by: Michael Dom | 13 December 2012 at 03:20 PM

Thanks for the clarity, Ganjiki. In response:
1) The man you infer to may have been a Christian - check that. Also most authorities on both sides of our fence seem to agree that that particular man and the war machine he created out of a nation was 'insane'(i.e. is we refer to the same man).
2) Religious ideology as well as Christian understanding of God has "evolved over time" and it has been argued that Jesus Christ was the first anarchist.
3) While it is your view that the evolution of morality "cannot be sustained" by our naturalistic path, I do not need to accept that as true for me. I do not maintain the argument that morality is a "working of the naturalistic brain". In fact, I think morality is a uniquely human construct which is only served by higher levels of thought by human beings - the product of our individual and social interactions.
4) As for the satirical creed, well it sure serves it's purpose as a cleverly joined list of distasteful statements (like dis-information) that does nothing to reflect the thoughts of 'good people' who are pragmatists and non-creationists. Is there a reference on that or does the author wish to remain anonymous?

Posted by: Michael Dom | 13 December 2012 at 02:59 PM

Michael
Here's a satirical "Creed" of what "non-theistic" moralist could also say. I guess it highlights my point about being unable to be consistent in holding those views:
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.
"Chance" a post-script
If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

Posted by: Ganjiki D Wayne | 13 December 2012 at 01:37 PM

Okay Michael. My example may have been extreme (But I do recall someone(s) actually trying that extreme measure in the last century). But you havent responded to my point I'm afraid.
Regarding morality and ethical norms. I think we can all agree that it doesnt exist within institutionalised religion. It is something all humans (maybe most) have the capacity to recognise. My argument is that we have it because we are created and our maker put it in us. Differing views are that it evolved over time.
The latter view cannot be sustained; especially when one goes against such moral conscience to do what is immoral. Why do we say something is wrong (whatever it is)? What i mean is: If moral conscience is a work of our nature, then doing both "moral" and "immoral" things are equal workings of naturalistic brain (or whatever the source). therefore there is no basis to say whether one thing is good/right and another is bad or wrong.

Posted by: Ganjiki D Wayne | 13 December 2012 at 01:23 PM

Ethical and moral behaviour does not exist only within a framework of institutionalised religion, or any religious formulation for that matter. It is a high order capacity of most human beings.
The great and wonderful codes of reasonable human practice – for example, the golden rule to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ - were drawn from human experience and aspiration and can be and are maintained irrespective of religion.
Writing as someone who moved away from card carrying Christianity many years ago, tiring of its institutional flaws and spiritual imponderables at the age of 17, I’m able to assert with confidence that secularists like me are well able to understand and practice high moral values.
And, having in my life lived amongst heathens, Christians, animists, Muslims, Buddhists and others of differing beliefs, I find it intellectually unacceptable to argue that human morality cannot exist in a coherent form unless it has the label of religion on it.
Apart from its inhuman tone, that is a very self-serving view.
When I was a young man, Papua New Guinea taught me a lot. One important thing it taught me was that moral and good behaviour has no artificial bounds such as those that may be imposed by notions of religion, race or any other classification.
It’s a lesson I’m glad I learned at such a young age.

Posted by: Keith Jackson | 13 December 2012 at 12:19 PM

What kind of moral advice, what kind of philosophy do atheists and pragmatists teach?
Well, I'm no expert so try looking at this recommended reading (for pragmatists and interested others);
The Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu (circa 100 BCE).
Excerpts from Book 1,Chapters;
XXX

Ruling the people by means of the Way
Does not involve awing the realm with force.
That’s likely to come full circle.
Where the general camped
There the brambles grow.
In the wake of a great army
Bad harvests inevitably follow.
The good man aims at ending war,
And doing so fears to intimidate.
Achieve the aim but don’t boast.
Achieve the aim without display.
Achieve the aim without arrogance.
Achieve the aim but don’t assert it.
Achieve the aim but don’t intimidate.
The creature that ignores what exists from of old
Is described as going against the Way.
What goes against the Way
Will come to a swift end.
XXXI
Since weapons are instruments of evil,
And people detest them,
A wise man can’t stand their use.
A gentleman, in his house,
Makes the left the place of honour.
In military matters
The right is the place of honour.
Since weapons are instruments of evil,
They are not the instruments of the gentleman.
When he is forced to use them
He does so without savouring it.
Victory is not glorious,
Those for whom it is glorious
Delight in killing human beings.
Those who delight in killing human beings
Will never control the realm.
The left takes precedence on joyous occasions.
The right takes precedence on sad occasions.
A lieutenant’s place is on the left.
A general’s place is on the right.
Mourning rites are observed.
When there are mounds of dead
One should weep with sorrow.
When one is victorious
Observe the mourning rites.

Posted by: Michael Dom | 13 December 2012 at 11:51 AM

Ganjiki, I'm afraid your example is out of line and indeed has nothing to do with pragmatism.
It is an extreme notion and one that infers that a pragmatic person or people would decide that killing many other people was a 'good idea'.
(Try insanity, it might work!).
In my view, that point does not hold truth. Adhering to pragmatism does not mean 'doing whatever --- ---- we like',(so that the world can be more manageable and less populous).
That notion is simply ridiculous and in fact, impractical.

Posted by: Michael Dom | 13 December 2012 at 11:17 AM

Thanks Michael. "Conversion" was not the intention of this essay. Yes, you are right, both worldviews arrive at the importance of human rights.
My point was that the pragmatic approach cannot argue against people who choose not to have any concern for human rights.
If for example a person, taking a pragmatic approach, decided to eliminate people who didn't contribute anything good to the world (so that the world can be more manageable and less populous), how would fellow "pragmatists" counter his equally "pragmatic" approach to fixing the world?
Because they both think that their approaches will make the world a better place. But disagree on their methods.

Posted by: Ganjiki D Wayne | 13 December 2012 at 10:50 AM

Thanks Phil - Nowhere in my piece do I suggest that people who don't believe in God are not humane. (If you can point out such an insinuation in the essay I'd be interested).
Quite the contrary. People (atheists or otherwise) can be good to each other. The thing is, atheists don't have a foundation to be good.
If atheists are bad to each other it wouldn't be different to them also being good to each other. I think a certain stereotype has been imported into my essay to suggest that.
As to your suggestion to abondon whatever god one follows and think for yourself, well that isn't working out very well in the world is it.
People become selfish, they can sit on major financial institutions and siphon off millions at the expense of others.
They can abort their babies at will. They can leave their families and practise adultery at will.
They can lead completely selfish lives yet be completely consistent with "think for yourself".
In fact they take up a "god" in place of another: the "self" god

Posted by: Ganjiki D Wayne | 13 December 2012 at 10:33 AM

Interesting. But I remain unconvinced - or, as a 'creationist' might say, unconverted.
What does morality have to do with gods?
Why do we seek a root meaning for basic human rights? Is that not self defeating since, neither side, creationist or pragmatic, seems defensible.
This one sentence stands out, "There is absolutely no basis to protect human rights." Absolutely.
But that does not mean it's not a good thing to do, the best course of action to take for the benefit of all people, good, bad or ugly.
A creationist might say, "God wills it"; a pragmatist might say, "It's a point of reference".
Does it really matter which view it comes from or is it more important that both worldviews actually agree that human rights are necessary?

Posted by: Michael Dom | 13 December 2012 at 10:27 AM

That's a very long bow to conclude that people who don't believe in a supreme being are somehow not humane.
Caring for one's fellow human beings is a matter of ethics and you don't need a god for that.
I would bet that there have been more atrocities, big and small, committed against other humans in the name of one god or another than there ever was by non-believers.
One might even conclude that gods are created by human beings for political purposes, including making war and killing people.
I would suggest that one way to be a really humane and caring individual would be to abandon whatever god you follow and think for yourself.

Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 12 December 2012 at 05:21 PM

Interesting. Yes, the world is a place where many humans are treated inhumanely. It is called "sin".
"Do unto others as you would do unto yourself." "Love one another as you would love yourself." "Having compassion" are the key concepts.
"Man was made in the image of God." We have a soul. We have to learn what is right and what is wrong when it comes to how we act as humans.
Which gets us back to corruption. PNG needs an ICAC ASAP to teach PNG people e.g. bureaucrats and politicians, how acting corruptly and sneaking off with millions of kina to buy property in Cairns, is inhuman. It lacks compassion in a Big Way!
It means money does not go towards saving the life of an expectant mother, educating a child, training up a future doctor etc etc. It is violating Human Rights in a Big Way.