Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:37:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
572 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. 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.
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. It can be argued that we treat the animals we eat as
badly as we can without effecting their market value – and you claim we both
have a right to do this *and* and more morals?
Scott A
>
> If you cling to the notion that might makes right, are you human, or are you
> merely an animal?
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
