To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 11302
11301  |  11303
Subject: 
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:37:21 GMT
Viewed: 
690 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
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.

It doesn't. You aren't the initiator of force.

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 initiate the use of force routinely you're not human in my book.

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

See above.

++Lar



Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR