 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) But nature allows killing for the sake of survival. I have no problem taking the life of any human being who is trying to take my life or my wife's or child, and I have no problem being absolutely brutal in doing so if it means survival. If (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) I think you need to reread my posts then. What I am arguing for is justice for ALL, which would negate the need to even consider charity. If everyone had equal PTO/PFT, regardless of the reason, this debate wouldn't even have had a reason to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Evidence? (...) Again, do you have evidence that other animals *can't* choose? (...) We may be higher on the sliding "moral" scale than most animals, but I don't agree that all other animals are at the bottom (ie totally amoral). I think (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) <snipped some intersting stuff> (...) Right! People have different ideas of what is most important in their lives, and life in general. For some people it's their family, others their friends, some people are just plain hedonistic and live for (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Unless you are amoral, the fact that you can kill someone does not mean, in and of itself, that you have the RIGHT to do so. It merely means that you have the ability to do so. Animals are amoral. In their system, might makes right. Humans, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) So be it then, Dan. Clearly your idea of rights is far different from mine, and I will indeed take your statements about rights with a grain of salt since your definition, from my perspective, is flawed. ++Lar (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: [snip] (...) Like so many other political & corporate policies.... ROSCO (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) Potentially being one of the subjects of this post (?) I'd like to make a distinction here-- I think the first time I was forced to realize it was reading Emanuel Levinas-- the distinction between the morals of charity and justice. Justice is (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
Is man-kind still considered a mammal by the science community or did I miss out on the "breakthrough" that proves we are not actually animals? Despite the appearence of higher intelligence and "moral" decision making and assuming we are still (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) They both equal natural "rights" to try to thrive and succeed. If both are in competition, the one that can reproduce more or faster, or finds a niche in a specific environment, may be the one who survives longer. Look at "Africanized" honey (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
