Debate : 11300


Off-Topic / Debate / 11300	11299 \| 11301

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:06:05 GMT
Viewed:	638 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > > Animals are amoral. In their system, might makes right. Disagree. Nothing makes 'right.' Might makes reality. > > 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. Additionally, they can choose to be immoral, which I'm wonder if people in this thread are forgetting is not the same as amoral. > There is nothing amoral about a lion killing a wilder beast with all its I think there is. Neither the lion nor the wildebeest is concerned with morality. It is an action completely without moral regard. It is therefore amoral. But not immoral. > A lion will kill its prey as > quickly and cleanly as it can Are you sure? Many animals do not. And while I'm not willing to state as fact that about lions, I thought that they were among the animals who are not at all concerned about quick clean kills. And in fact often started eating before the prey was dead. > – 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 I think that if you're willing to soften the 'as badly as possible' part, I think that you can also replace 'argued' with 'proven.' Humans do incredibly inhumane things to their food animals. > – and you claim we both > have a right to do this *and* and more morals? I think we are capable of being so much more and so much less. The same thing that allows us to transcend amorality, makes it our fault if we do not. If we are cruel. We would not even think in terms of fault with the lion. Chris

Message has 2 Replies:

		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)

		Is might right, or just a reality? (Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) This is a very interesting point. I think most of us would say that might is not right. However, although he may just be talking about animals, Chrisis right when he says "Might makes reality". In most of our day-to-day lives might does win (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

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