 | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) 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: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | (...) I would speculate, along with Larry, that animals do not have a system of rights in the same form as humans do. But I don't think we invented the condition of rights as much as they revealed themselves to us through nature. Do you think this (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'd go farther than speculating, I'd assert it, unless someone can prove that some specific animals do reason morally, in which case I'd consider that we might want to consider them as "human" rather than "merely" animal. (a tangential SF (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | | (...) This is how I feel thus it is true to me. I think the fundemental condition of "right" already existed in nature, as nature is our inspiration for nearly everything else-- art, music, even science. Our arts often try to capture that essence (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, yes and no. If you know or can establish that the person you are debating has a fundamentally different view of a basic principle, and has a track record of never changing their mind, it may be that the "best" you can do is get that (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I was exploring the idea that perhaps the only fundamental right is the right to an impartial "rights based" mediation of disputes. This does suggest why animals then don't specifically have rights since they don't have the capability to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Being the relative moralist that I am, I'll push that one step further and say I don't believe there *are* "natural" or "fundamental" rights. It's a moral definition humans create based on an emotional response. Perhaps, however, there are (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I was off by a bit: "To have a right ... is ... to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." And also: "When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | At this moment I am drinking Mountain Dew; Code Red. I have the ability to drink it and have chosen to do so. The right to drink it is mine, I have given this right to myself. If, this afternoon, I were to learn that the governments of the world (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) So you really do believe that ability == right. Why even use the word right instead of ability? Ability has no confusing connotations to other members of society, after all. (...) This I won't buy. I just zipped over to dictionary.com to show (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | (...) No. An ability determines the claim to a right. Back up a few decades for a moment... it would be pure foolishness for me to claim the right of flight as I do not have the ability to fly...now, return to the present... I still do not have the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) 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?) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Good examples! Dogs are pack animals, it is true. Is that sufficient to explain these behaviours? I don't know. Saving one's meal ticket would exhibit forethought. Do dogs have such? The conventional answer is that they don't, so that's not an (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) Important point to keep in mind: amoral does not equal immoral. Immorality implies that the converse--morality--exists. But can't a competing, "dog idea" of morality exist? Why must human morality be ported to a dog, when moralism is (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, the idea is (in my mind) that morality in general has some "root" to it in order to be deemed morality at all. Heck, your morality is just as misplaced when ported to me as when mine is ported to a dog. And yet we do both. Are our (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) What about dolphins which have saved people with probably no real opportunity for bonding? My feeling is that most of what makes us human is not unique to us, but is exhibited to at least some degree by other animals. It is interesting to note (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | I'm responding to various layers here...not just Frank. (...) hits. (...) It seems that your observation of an animal acting on what I think could be explained through instinct and self-interest has lead you to assign morality. I'm not convinced. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | (...) <snipped some stuff here and there> (...) Same could be asked about women with motherhood (motherly instincts). How much is learned, how much is hard wired? Most people disagree but I really believe that people are hard wired with so many more (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) The question is, what constitutes proof of morality? Prove to me that *you* have a concept of morality. Perhaps morality itself is instinctive, even? Once you can draw the hard line between instinct and intelligence you've made a tremendous (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) You're creating a false dichotomy between a la "it must happen at specific point X, or else it cannot happen at all." This is simply untrue. I would assert that, far from occuring at a single, threshhold point, morality is a system of values (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I whole-heartedly agree. However, in order to argue that animals do *NOT* have it and that humans *DO*, something must be different. But I don't argue that. Accepting the premise that animals *DON'T*, I hold that at some *point*, morality (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Before someone points out my error, I'll just correct myself here. It can be argued, and come to think of it, I think *should* be argued that self-consciousness *is* the prerequisite (sp?) of which I was speaking-- I merely was assuming a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Don't I do this by discussing concepts of morality with you? (...) Do you mean the ability to conceive of morality and the lack there of, and different sets of morals? Or do you mean the tendency to act in a way that we consider moral? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I think that until we have clear evidence that animals understand morality, we have to assume that they probably don't. Even if an animal does lots of nice things, I wouldn't call it moral unless it had the ability to decide to do not-nice (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) How well do humans understand morality? I doubt animals would have the same idea of morality as humans, heck even different humans have different ideas... (...) Type "pit bull attack" into your favourite search engine. Do these animals know (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
