Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:28:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
789 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > The problem with the lion situation is that we are inferring our moral
> > values on it - I do not feel that they are compatible.
>
> Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral. They do not have morals or
> recognise rights the way that creatures with a developed reasoning system do.
No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth.
>
> Note that to be amoral if you are not capable of being moral is not bad, it
> is not good, it just is. So no judgement of animals is intended by saying
> that they are amoral.
>
> On the other hand I am quite happy to pass judgement on amoral humans. To
> wit: I find them not completely human.
You "pass judgement" on others too much. Who are you to infer your moral
values on others - judging them by your own standard? Do you assume you are
the role model they should aspire to?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
