Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission cultureVilla: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culturePosted Jan 31, 2013 0:31 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)In reply to: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture by tjc Parent article: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
>> Put simply, what you choose to do to others, they can justify doing to you.
> You're assuming that humans have a shared sense of right and wrong.
Actually, no, subjective ideas about "right" and "wrong" don't factor into it. Again, that's part of why it's a natural law. Basically, the one /being/ punished gets to choose the rules, but must apply them universally: they can't judge their own aggression by one set of rules, and the response by another.
(Log in to post comments)
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 31, 2013 3:59 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
Whether Natural Law defines right and wrong depends on who's conception you subscribe to. Locke's conception is based on Protestant theology, which is reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence -- "...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."
|
|||||||||||||