Darvan's Life Questions and Bemusings [Part 2 of 3] A Question of Morality

[Darvan Korematsu]

Well some of you may remember a few weeks ago I posted a Part 1 of 3 series on questions and my two cents of life, and that part of it was the questions on gender identification and non-binary individuals. Well now I come with another part to my series, and it falls well in line with one of the other two things I wanted to talk about, and maybe question and delve into for Reborn. So those members living in America, and those who have been browsing the forums as of late, may have realized that homosexual marriage is now recognized as legal in the United States, and some of the other events occurring within the last few years in America more along the lines of civil rights.

What I now come with is the question of whether that was really a right decision or not. I know you guys might start spouting off that, yes indeed, it was a smart idea, but I'd like to open it up for a discussion. I mean, in my own personal opinion, I honestly don't really care about that case all that much, but then again that comes from the perspective of a non-homosexual. When I saw the headline on a newspaper announcing that the case had passed through, I sort of shrugged it off after the initially mild surprise. I don't think it will really mean anything in the next few days, but maybe in the next few years or decades in America there might be some sort of grand poobah holiday declared in recognition of that act. Then again maybe I'm overthinking it, because there is no real holiday I can think of that nationally recognized in America other than Martin Luther King Day, which involves civil rights. There really was no holiday for recognizing the 13th Amendment (U.S Constitution Amendment that freed all slaves from forced servitude), or Roe v. Wade (Recognized U.S Supreme Court case concerning abortion, and more along the lines of rights to privacy rather than abortion).

I read somewhere that someone mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in one of those gay marriage threads, and I decided to study up on it, because I never really read the Declaration before. I mean I know it sounds selfish, but there are sometimes, where I wanna say: "Fuck civil rights." Now I don't loathe America for the choices that my forefathers made, because there ain't jack shit I can do about it. One thing I feel like I might hear about from loud-mouthed gay couples is how they're proud of their homosexuality and whatnot, maybe disrupting me from what I'm doing. Now I'd wanna pimp-slap someone like that, and all of the sudden I guess it's a hate crime. But in my defense, it's more because they wouldn't shut the hell up rather than me "hating" their group.

When I looked at the Declaration, the first thing that caught my eye was how similar it looked when compared to certain American laws and principles that I am very familiar with. For instance, Article 1 sounds almost like the drafters just looked at the American Declaration of Independence, cut the sliver out of all men being created equal without certain inalienable rights, and placed it on the document, after some revising scrutinity. To me, human and civil rights are more on the lines of privileges. Also I noticed the Declaration was drafted by the United Nations, which is spearheaded in America (New York City to be exact). The Declaration was made by a collection of countries which a majority of democracies. Still, not every country on Earth is a democracy. To me, human and civil rights are a nicetie - like if you were to go to McDonalds and you get 7 chicken nuggets on your 6-piece meal.

This is where I come to the actual question I have at hand. Doesn't the Universal Declaration seem like a subtle American imposition on the world? I mean, I think it's immoral because of the question of philosophy, which is to have an open mind. Now when having an open mind, you have to consider each side to an argument. For instance, not every governmental system is absolute perfection. Each has their own flaws and shining benefits. But I think the Universal Declaration is kind of stupid, because everyone is different on their system of laws, codes, social mores, folkways, and the like. For instance, if the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta were to exist today, with it's old traditions, it might be shunned by the world, because they fucked with the kids, the women, the men, and the slaves. They had a solid idea that if you were not strong enough, you were thrown out, because you couldn't carry on. Basically the world should be a bountiful harvest, not a tit we can suckle off of, and I think Sparta had that philosophy down to a practical "science".

I don't think one should be born into the world with rights guarenteed to them throughout their life, rather they should earn them, or have X number of chances before your rights/privileges are taken away. Men (and women) cannot always be created equal. Some are born with different skin color. Some are born into worlds apart with infrastructure and social classes. In some extreme cases, some are quite literally born lesser because of birth defects.

But hey, that's just my questions, as well as my two cents. Everybody's got an opinion, and if there's one civil right I particularly enjoy, it's the privilege to speak my mind when I feel needed. I'd like to hear what Reborn has to say about something like this, and maybe help expand our views on something like this.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Darvan Korematsu

[Shamitako]

Not a fan of how and when the decision involving homosexual marraiges was made, and TBH didn't effect me much since when I get married I'll probs be Canaderpian

But, honestly, I'm just past the point of caring on the topic

I will say that I disagree with the majority of things you stated (though I don't have the time or energy right now to explain why) Though I do respect your opinion as your own and you do make several valid points

[Felicity]

What I find interesting about this entire topic is how bloody unifying it is for every different viewpoint. All of a sudden everyone is thinking in terms of groups. You yourself said you didn't care as a straight person or, in your words, "Non-homosexual". You placed yourself into that group of people. But plenty of straight people have different views on the matter. Point is, all of a sudden people have scrambled into these classifications which are actually quite irrelevant like it's armour for the potential shitshow of a debate it can be. That is what I have found interesting throughout the past couple of days.

[Flux]

In terms of civil rights, I don't understand how someone can see them as privileges. That just leads to a dictatorial goverment, with a small minority imposing their wiil on the majority. Honestly, my political beliefs are best categorized as anarchist, though not in the way most of you are probably thinking. People shouldn't have to be dictated by a government in order to live peacefully. My perfect government would just be a government of simple morals. Obviously that can't happen because of the types of people that are out there and always will be out there, but I hate the idea of a small group of people telling us what we can and can't do.

On the topic of gay marriage, of course that was the right decision. You can tell by my previous statement that I don't think anybody should be able to tell you, "You can't marry him because he's the same gender." That whole concept is just stupid to me.

[Maelstrom]

America is the oldest and longest lasting democracies in history. Greece doesn't count because it ended.

I don't know how familiar you are with the social contract, because that explains a lot. You give up 'freedoms' to gain security.

The idea is to have an open mind, with a few important caveats. Like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the social contract, that thing that protects the lives of everyone, why would you not kill me for the stuff I have? So you don't get killed likewise of course. Because I would own you, awake or asleep. People as a society could not coexist. We would be like lion prides, marked territory and life on the line for any who would dare break those barriers.

And what would be the total sum of human accomplishment then? We've gone beyond defining success as the strongest, or the smartest, or the most charismatic.

Human rights give a certain amount of opportunity. The opportunity to reach one's potential and make an impact on humanity in any number of ways.

While imperfect, the idea is to provide the most opportunity possible. The basis is that everyone has a better chance for their different ideas to be heard, weighed, and measured against others. Or for their physical attributes to be the key to their success.

And as I've noted elsewhere, you have the freedom to say whatever you want. Everybody else has the right to call whatever you say 'bullshit'.

These arise from the idea that no one person is absolute, no one is perfect. If you can name a perfection, any number of people can name fallacies in the same thing.

That being said, those with the most knowledge of the world have the greatest basis for saying things are certain ways and not another. They are generally given the most deference, for having been proven right the most times.

I think your questions are more provocative than seeking true answers. Most people asking these questions have their own resolution made up already. You just want to see what others have come up with and compare. And so is your life question 2 of 3 more anger inspiring than before. You dare question foundations that most have not thought to question.

[Peepeepoopoo]

TL;DR much Darvan?

The gay marriage thing is more a matter of equality. There was no logical reason to deny same-sex couples marriage. Of course marriage is, in my opinion, a hassle and not worth the benefits it may provide (I am actually ignorant to the perks of being married, sue me). You don't need to marry someone in order to love them and live your life with them (at least in modern countries like the US).

This whole gay marriage issue is very much like the issue of topless women we had in Canada a while back. To summarize, men could be topless in public but it was indecent exposure if women were topless in public, so women protested for that freedom and they got it. Of course, one of the biggest reasons they fought for this was gender equality. After the protests there hasn't been a single topless woman that I've seen in public.

It's all a matter of principle.

[Darvan Korematsu]

Well I like hearing what everyone has to say about morality and rights, because again, this is part of who I am. If you wanna view me or my opinions as a real pile of nonsensical statements or ideas jumbled together, then so be it, that's your opinion. I like hearing what you all have to say, because we all beat to a different drum. Many of the people on Reborn, from what I can safely assume, live in a country that has a democratic government, if not a democratic process to policy-making.

To address Flux, what I imply by civil "privileges" is the fact, here in America, let's assume you are a felon. You've committed some heinous crime that has given you some time in prison (not too long though). In America, normally a number of the select "rights" given to people are not given to criminals, such as your right to bear arms (in other words wield firearms), in many states you cannot vote (which is also a "right" in America), and there's the deal with background checks, which I can think some "rights" can be applied to that as well, such as when applying for some jobs. The thing is, rights are ideals that one is entitled to, and where I come from with that is the thought that these people aren't guaranteed these ideals when they leave prison, thus they have proven they are not worthy of the "privilege".

To address Mael, I am aware Hobbes made the first legitimate notation of a social contract in Leviathan. The problem arising in most governments is how many rights and privileges can be written off to ensure the highest chances of safety, prosperity, and happiness. Also, I never intend for my threads here on the Trainer's Journal to anger people when I ask questions, because the question of rights and morality simply has no truely correct answer or collection of answers to it, only the answers the general populace believes correct, which this is just rewording what you said. I also just want to read what everyone else has to say.It's like in a boring conversation where no exchanges are made, and then a topic of interest is spewed from a random person's lips.

I mean, I think we as humans need guidance sometimes, because if you realize someone is better than you at something, wouldn't you observe to see what they're doing, to maybe improve yourself? Yes it's a very situational system to follow, however Mael does have the case and point on that matter. The most primal point of the human race is to advance ourselves, whether by reproducing or by improving conditions for the next generation of humans to inherit the Earth

Well I ain't got much more to say. If this topic was really THAT controversial, I think my last topic will be a splendidly healthy debate, which I'll probably post next week. It will concern humans and our affinity for the unknown (I.E - God/religion, Luck, the Illuminati, Hope, Aliens). That thread will be the least driven by principle, than what I've talked about so far.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Darvan Korematsu