this Wednesday, October 24th, AI @ El Paso and the Philosophy Club @ UTEP are presenting a panel on the relativity of human rights. the panel will consists of 3 outstanding speakers: Dr Simon, chair of the philosophy dpt at UTEP, Dr Ferret faculty in the philosophy dpt at UTEP and Dr Wren Faculty from the humanities dpt also at UTEP. each of the speakers will talk form 15 to 20 minutes on a topic of their choice around the relativity of human rights. you are welcomed to come and join us, its gonna be at the University Suite, East Union 3rd floor, at 7 pm here at UTEP... so, what do you think about this topic? how about discussing ethical systems for a change... not to say that I'm changing my min...lol!! just that ethical systems crash against each other creating a problem with the respect towards equality. one system may consider one thing as ethical and another system may consider that ethical thing as unethical. these disagreements are supposed to be dismissed thanks to international law and the declaration of human rights, however, how is it that human rights become a necessary condition of the natural process? do they? i would say that human rights bend, or become contingent within this possible world. ok maybe that does not make sense at all, but can you understand what i mean? human rights are supossed to be a measure to ALL, but if not ALL get them then:
For all x, there is some y such that Dxy...where... x=human y=human rights D=deserve
So, in the logical sense if every human deserves these rights, where is it that the process is broken?
ok, so im gonna be needing some experts on ethics, lets talk ethics and moral philosophy for a while, just for fun... how about that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ok Ale well I am no moral philosopher for sure, but I will give my two cents on this topic (for what it's worth). After tonight's very exciting panel, I would have to agree with at least one philosopher Dr. Simon invoked: Immanuel Kant. Kant, if I'm not mistaken, in fact believes in the universality of morality to a point of having the rights be absolute. What I like about his system is that he says that it is the INTENTION that counts. By "intention" I, and consequently he, mean only that it is what I mean to do regardless of the outcome. So it is what I mean to do, despite of what actually happens because of my actions, that can be judged morally.
I would be most prone to accept Kant's arguments on this aspect. However, I believe it also to be extremely difficult in being judicious when we know that it is the case that whatever we say IS in fact from a certain perspective. Is there an objective point of view?
y al final como fue el panel?? k se dijo al final?? ahh soy chuy jejeje
Post a Comment