Debate : 11303


Off-Topic / Debate / 11303	11302 \| 11304

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:43:03 GMT
Viewed:	803 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > > There is nothing amoral about a lion killing a wilder beast with all its > might – it is its natural right to do so. Look up the difference between amoral and immoral. There is nothing *immoral* about it, but it most certainly IS amoral, unless you think animals reason about morality and make ethical decisions. (To Ross, it's more reasonable to ask that you prove this happens than that I prove it doesn't, partly because you're asking me to prove the negative and partly because your claim would be the more far fetched) Then explain how the lion's "right", which clearly conflicts with the wildebeest's "right" to live, is still a right. My point is that rights don't conflict, and that animals do not use a system of rights in working things out. They are amoral. Like I said to Dan, if you disagree, your understanding of rights, in my opinion, is suspect. By extension, anything you say ABOUT rights is therefore suspect as well, in my opinion.

Message has 3 Replies:

		Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) It sounds like you're were going somewhere good and have given up Larry. I assume (hope!) your goal in all this was not to get to the point where you could just tell folks that they don't understand rights. I think there must be common (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) What is you point? (...) To Ross : Don't expect Larry to justify anything. (...) Larry, what are you taking about? Do you suggest the lion should eat grass? Or that the wildebeest should carry a gun? (...) Same as what? The same as you? Do you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) OK. You asserted "animals are amoral" with nothing to back it up. Go type "dog hero" into your favourite search engine, look through the list of hits. Many acts can be explained by (the dog exhibiting) self preservation, but what causes a dog (...) (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?
(...) 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