Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 05:54:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
685 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
>
> > At any moment a person can kill another person. No matter the laws
> > implaced, it is a natural ability for an animal to find a way to overcome
> > its forseen oppressor.
>
> 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.
Evidence?
> In their system, might makes right. Humans, while they
> are still animal, can choose not to be amoral.
Again, do you have evidence that other animals *can't* choose?
> To do so means repudiating
> the notion that force is the only mechanism for deciding outcomes. That is,
> humans transcend the merely animal.
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 humans have a much more complex "hierarchy" than most animal groups,
and so one who appears "mighty" may, in fact, be further down some other
pecking order.
> If you cling to the notion that might makes right, are you human, or are you
> merely an animal?
Or are you Bill Gates? 8?)
ROSCO
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
