Do completely personal beliefs matter?

[Dominus Atheos]

-Congratulations! You've found a declaration. It's really too bad you actually need to justify that declaration rationally.

Are you fucking stupid? You need justification that human beings have an inherent right to live? What the fuck is wrong with you?

It is usually one of those things that's just assumed because it's easier and it generally has a better outcome for all involved. The outcome being "better" is generally all the justification required under utilitarianism for anything, including human rights.

Of course, I was just pointing out what a terrible person he must be to need "justification" of that assumption.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United Nations, and ratified by every country in the world. It has as much authority, if not more, as any law passed. The United States signed it and said that this declaration has more authority then even our bill of rights.

So what? If they'd signed the exact opposite, that wouldn't make it right, would it?

Of course not, but he demanded proof of my "claim." If the UDHR hadn't been passed, killing would still be wrong, but Nova Andromeda wouldn't think so.

Yes it is, and there's nothing wrong with that. It would be if it were an appeal to authority fallacy, but it's not.

Yes it is, because it's saying it's "logically justfied" because x said so, not because of a logical argument.

It's only a fallacy when x doesn't have the authority to say so. As I explained, the UDHR has authority.

[Dominus Atheos]

Are you fucking stupid? You need justification that human beings have an inherent right to live? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Clearly, you are fucking stupid. If something is as obvious as you say, then it should be easy to justify it. The fact that you're stumbling for a justification means that your concept of ethics is not as well thought-out as you think it is. I can justify the right to life within the context of my ethical framework,

Oh really? And how would you have justified to Nova Andromeda that it's wrong to put a psychopath to death so you can shift the resources being used on him to other people who contribute more to society, using utilitarian ethics?

but it's pretty clear that your ethical framework is so poorly thought-out (if at all) that you cannot do this other than appealing to authority. In other words, you have a childish slapdash version of ethics and that's what you're basing your arguments on.

I can prove it in ways I accept, but my opponent wouldn't have accepted it. So I used the best argument that my opponent would accept.

[Darth Wong]

Oh really? And how would you have justified to Nova Andromeda that it's wrong to put a psychopath to death so you can shift the resources being used on him to other people who contribute more to society, using utilitarian ethics?

Rule utilitarianism. Or is that too many syllables for you?

but it's pretty clear that your ethical framework is so poorly thought-out (if at all) that you cannot do this other than appealing to authority. In other words, you have a childish slapdash version of ethics and that's what you're basing your arguments on.

I can prove it in ways I accept, but my opponent wouldn't have accepted it. So I used the best argument that my opponent would accept.

And you think that mindlessly appealing to authority would make him more likely to accept?

[Nova Andromeda]

Are you fucking stupid? You need justification that human beings have an inherent right to live? What the fuck is wrong with you?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United Nations, and ratified by every country in the world. It has as much authority, if not more, as any law passed. The United States signed it and said that this declaration has more authority then even our bill of rights.

Yes it is, and there's nothing wrong with that. It would be if it were an appeal to authority fallacy, but it's not.

... several posts later ...

It's only a fallacy when x doesn't have the authority to say so. As I explained, the UDHR has authority.

-Would you like to quote the Pope next? He has even more "authority" than the UDHR. BTW, anyone with legitimate authority on a subject should be able to produce a rational justification for the argument in question. For instance, a global warming scientist should be able to tell us exactly how his conclusions on global warming were rationally derived. I defy you to show this is true in the case of the UDHR.

Have you ever read the fucking thing? Can you even read? Or are you so fucking retarded that you have to have a screen reader to even browse this site? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 says "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

I realize your mental retardation prevents you from being smart enough to count, so I will explain to you, very slowly so you can understand me, that 2 comes right before 3. Are you with me so far? So Article 2 comes right before Article 3, which means that the rights in article 3 don't have any exceptions.

-According to your interpretation I can't kill a person in self defense. Are you really so sure about that? Are you simply a crazy peace nut?

Wow, your feet look like a blur, you're back-pedaling so fast.

Your argument was not:

"kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death (i.e., psychopaths) instead of spending valuable resources to contain them"

It was:

"kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death (i.e., psychopaths) because they are a drain on society instead of spending valuable resources to contain them"

...

THERE IS NO MORE WORTHY CAUSE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!

This person suffers from an affliction, that causes among other things him not to be able to support himself. He deserves your support just as much as anyone else that fits that description.

-You really can't read can you? It's obvious that psychopaths are a drain on society BECAUSE they need to be contained or they would be an even bigger fucking drain! Just give it up and let your strawman go.
-Your utter failure to see the use in not wasting society's limited resources is also amazing. Therefore, let me spell this out for you: it costs more lives to contain psychopaths than it does to kill them and spend the resources to save more worthy lives such as people starving in 3rd world countries!

Of course not, but he demanded proof of my "claim." If the UDHR hadn't been passed, killing would still be wrong, but Nova Andromeda wouldn't think so.

-So basically you are saying the UDHR isn't justified because the whole world says so, but simply because it agrees with you? Get your fucking story straight. BTW, that is still and appeal to authority and I grow extremely weary of pointing it out....

I can prove it in ways I accept, but my opponent wouldn't have accepted it. So I used the best argument that my opponent would accept.

-What is it with people around here thinking that they know what goes on in other people's minds!?! You clearly have no damn clue what arguement I'm willing to accept since you mindlessly keep trying to shove strawmen and appeals to authority down my throat.
-It's far past time for use a rational arguement to support your bullshit claim that it's always morally wrong to kill someone .

[Surlethe]

I can prove it in ways I accept, but my opponent wouldn't have accepted it. So I used the best argument that my opponent would accept.

Surely it's not difficult to realize that a "proof" which an objective observer won't accept is not much of a proof at all? If you'd presented these arguments and Nova Andromeda hadn't accepted them, then one of two possibilities would be true: either Nova Andromeda would be wrong to not accept them, or they wouldn't really be proofs of your position.

[Rye]

Of course, I was just pointing out what a terrible person he must be to need "justification" of that assumption.

It's not terrible to request justification for such things. In fact, being prepared to demolish established emotional assumptions like this in an effort to rebuild them in a more rational way is a common thing to do in philosophy.

Of course not, but he demanded proof of my "claim." If the UDHR hadn't been passed, killing would still be wrong, but Nova Andromeda wouldn't think so.

I don't accept them as an ethical authority. Why should I?

It's only a fallacy when x doesn't have the authority to say so. As I explained, the UDHR has authority.

Why do they?