IanPolaris wrote...
Absolutely I can! This is what I mean by your education getting in your way. The challenge was re the mage circle was that I wasn't allowed to talk about human rights because there was no such thing in Thedas. That isn't true. The concept of human rights clearly does exist, and if the concept doesn't exist then it never would have become enshrined in law IRL either.
No, it doesn't. None of the things you've listed as evidence of it are evidence of it. As I've said - what you've mentioned about the legal system does not require a notion of inalienable human rights to exist. IRL, all of these due process features predate the notion of human rights and come from a separate idea of natural justice.
So you're wrong on that point. You don't seem harsh, just insistent on ignorance.
No I'm not. I am showing how in the game the concepts we associate with human rights are alive and well and do exist and (in this case) DO apply to the law as it should be applied.
They're associated with human rights because proponents of human rights believe that these are the kinds of features of a justice system that have to be entrenched for human rights to be protected. But they are not proof of human rights any more than the presence of glass is proof that someone has a functioning chemistry lab.
Again, you're letting your general ignorance about what constitutes a human right interfere with what you're arguing on an internet forum.
Other posters showed other examples (for example the fact that slavery and the slave trade is illegal outside of Tevinter).
That also isn't proof of a concept of universal inalienable human rights. You can have a moral justification against slavery without creating anything close to the idea of a human right.
All I have to do is show that the moral concepts exist for the purposes of what I needed to show, and I have.
But you haven't even done that, because you've given no evidence of the moral theories that are available in Thedas. All that you've shown are that certian instances of behaviour that modern theories say should follow if human rights exist as absolute proof that the same conceptual foundation for those rights exists in Thedas.
There's just no intellectual force behind this argument.
You have an autocrat that recognizes natural rights. If you study the philosophy behind Hume and the US Constitution (and UK Common law) an autocrat may ignore these natural rights, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't mean the autocrat won't be punished for ignoring them (ultimately by God).
You're almost comically wrong. But you know what? You're right. You understand legal and moral philosophy much better than I do. I don't know what I'm talking about. I've let all these years of education blind me to the true wisdom that you're sharing right now. You've read Hume, so
obviously you've got the right idea. Due process (even when you're using it completely wrong, in a way that doesn't even capture the meaning of the concept) totally proves what you say it does.
Retour en haut
