TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Do we need extensive human rights when we have morals?

Human rights are what make us human and enable us to respect humans and what a human stands for. We have human rights for most things in our daily life.
A new right is that prisoners (in the UK) should have the right to vote in the General Election. This has produced a large amount of controversy which, therefore, means that we are questioning our earlier morals which we thought were correct? How can we trust our instinctive moral decisions if other people can provoke us to question them?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 2 2012: There are really only two possible sources of morals.
    1) Inbuilt by our Creator.
    2) Decided by popular consensus at any given time.
    The answer to your question will depend on which source you favour.

    • Nov 2 2012: Peter- would you be so kind as to explain your sources ?
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2012: Hi Freddie,
        Logical deduction. Quite open to any other suggestions.

    • thumb
      Nov 2 2012: Peter,
      You seem to be limiting yourself with two EXTERNAL sources of morals. I suggest that as thinking, feeling, multi-sensory, multi-dimensional human beings, there are many more sources for our beliefs, than the two external sources you mention. You seem to be giving your ability to make informed choices to a perceived "creator", or "popular consensus". You give up the ability, possibility and opportunity to think and feel for yourself?
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2012: Hi Colleen.
        I guess moral decisions come from our minds. My suggestions are that these decisions are based on information which has either been :-
        1) Hardwired into us by our Creator. Or
        2) Worked out by our own minds based on knowledge & experience.
        So we do ultimately think & feel for ourselves, in either case we decide & take the consequences.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.