 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) 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. Note that to be amoral if you are not capable of being moral is not bad, it is not good, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I agree. But calling the lion, in this case, amoral makes it sound like it has a choice? (...) Dead animals don’t run away. Dead animals don’t jab you with their big pointy horns. (...) You may be right. I am no expert. (...) The problem with (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It sounds like you're were going somewhere good and have given up Larry. I assume (hope!) your goal in all this was not to get to the point where you could just tell folks that they don't understand rights. I think there must be common (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Look up the difference between amoral and immoral. There is nothing *immoral* about it, but it most certainly IS amoral, unless you think animals reason about morality and make ethical decisions. (To Ross, it's more reasonable to ask that you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) It doesn't. You aren't the initiator of force. (...) If you initiate the use of force routinely you're not human in my book. (...) See above. ++Lar (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) fact (...) whoever (...) Your emoticon implies that you're kidding. I'm not. I think your statement cuts right to the hear of what our rights actually are. But the difference I was pointing to is that we don't invest rights in certain classes (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Disagree. Nothing makes 'right.' Might makes reality. (...) Additionally, they can choose to be immoral, which I'm wonder if people in this thread are forgetting is not the same as amoral. (...) I think there is. Neither the lion nor the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) that (...) But you could argue that rights we've given to ourselves are just privileges that we all happen to agree on. Based mostly on the fact that we'll sue whoever disagrees. 8?) (...) I think "rights" has no real meaning or usefulness (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) This is an interesting point. Maybe the things that animals do resemble our rights cloely enough that we could sometimes call them rights. The dominant chicken (almost always a rooster, if one is present) does have the right to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) There is nothing amoral about a lion killing a wilder beast with all its might – it is its natural right to do so. A lion will kill its prey as quickly and cleanly as it can – it does not pump it full of antibiotics and growth hormones first. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
