Debate : 11304


Off-Topic / Debate / 11304	11303 \| 11305

Subject:	Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:17:32 GMT
Viewed:	861 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > 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. 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 elements of what makes a 'right' in all of our understandings. Dan, Scott, Kirby, and Ross seem to be agreeing to some kind of 'natural rights' that mean something entirely different than what I (and I think you) mean by the word. If I could hear from them what it is that makes something a natural right, maybe that would clear things up a little. The only potential objection that I have at the outset of this, is that it seemed sometimes that people were defining these natural rights simply as the ability to act a way. If 'natural right' and 'ability' are synonyms, then what's the point in using a more complicated phrase to discuss it? There must, it seems, be something that distinguishes between these rights and abilities. And I think I don't just agree with you (Larry) on rights either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that rights are immutible or not based on the context of culture. I think they clearly are. Chris

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) 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?)
(...) 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?)
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)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) 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)

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