Contemporary secular types who try to reason their way to TUHR get tripped up by words that are burdened by western/christian morality
The thought occurs to me that all this may be true, that jfruser's TUHR may entirely stem from christian beliefs. Does that in fact lead us to conclude that this value system is actually based on any universal truths?
Howdy from Texas, Iain!
Disclosure: I am a practicing Christian (I hope I get it right, some day).
So, from my POV, TUHR are based on universal truths: human life has value in and of itself, diginity of man, etc. These, at their foundation are based on articles of faith:
1. We are made in God's image
2. We are equal before him
3. etc cetera...
But faith is what makes the wicket so sticky: no matter how much logic, reason, and empiricism a Christian may marshall; at the base of it all is his faith.
Well-reasoned arguments can be made for expedience, erecting circumstances where much more "good" can be served by violating TUHR. (Classic example: Man who is certainly guilty of placing, and certainly knows the location of, a ticking time bomb. He won't talk, despite using all sorts of acceptable and controversial methods intended for those know to be guilty. The guy does have family, who happen to be completely innocent of this matter, but who's torture likely will free guilty man's tongue...) Well, a man who by faith holds that innocent life ought to be held blameless and unharmed...can not be "reasoned" into agreeing that the aforementioned scenario is right. Intentionally harming or killing the innocent is an evil act, plain & simple.
From a survival strategy POV, the question, "What will improve my chances of living to breed and pass on my genes?" is amoral. Sometimes it is best to cooperate & play nice. Sometimes it is best to whack Bob on the head out behind the privy to eliminate the competition for females. The answer to the classic "ticking time bomb" question above is a hearty "yes," and doubly so if one of your progeny is endangered by the bomb. No universal truths beyond "survive to breed."
From a practical outcomes as seen in the world POV, universal truths regarding human rights can not be deduced. Vile treatment of fellow humans is the rule, not the exception for most people on this planet.
I do not think the wholly secular person can come to accept TUHR without resorting to faith of some sort. Western Civ's values (if not practices, at times) are grounded in J-C morality. The substitute gods or faiths erected to mimic J-C demands to treat fellow humans with some modicum of respect are pretty thin gruel and have already been shot full of holes by the marxists and fascists. Today, we promote and
reward the most
amoral of "ethicists" to the
top bioethics posts in our most prestigious universities who have even weaker trumped-up faith and reason to the logical conclusion:
I detect no concept of TUHR from Peter Singer. For him, being self-aware is a prerequisite for humane treatment. (That requirement is, itself, an article of faith: it is not right to harm the self-aware).
I guess my conclusion is that the secularist will reason (absent faith) that there are no moral obstacles to their will to power.