Debate : 11296


Off-Topic / Debate / 11296	11295 \| 11297

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2001 07:51:47 GMT
Viewed:	550 times

> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > 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. 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 that makes me amoral, so be it. > Animals are amoral. In their system, might makes right. Humans, while they > are still animal, can choose not to be amoral. To do so means repudiating > the notion that force is the only mechanism for deciding outcomes. That is, > humans transcend the merely animal. Or better yet, humans have the ABILITY to transcend the "merely" animal, correct? But do we really? The fact remains that humans are the only species on this planet that kill their own in such sickening numbers. We are still aggressive and territorial and we still resort to violence, or the threat of violence, to settle disputes. > If you cling to the notion that might makes right, are you human, or are you > merely an animal? Tough question to answer because I see us all as animals (scratching, farting, yawning, bleeding, playing, and wondering what's for dinner -- just like our other animal brothers). We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, so I guess the other 2% must be the stuff that makes us think we're better than everything on this planet. We are amazing creatures, I won't deny that, but the anthropocentric view of life and the universe is pretty unrealistic and potentially destructive, in my opinion Dan

Message has 1 Reply:

		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)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

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

Custom Search