Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:27:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
869 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
I agree. But calling the lion, in this case, amoral makes it sound like it
has a choice?
>
> > 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. As I understand it as lion will kill its prey first by suffocation of strangulation. It makes evolutionary sense to do so:
Dead animals don’t run away.
Dead animals don’t jab you with their big pointy horns.
> And in fact often started eating
> before the prey was dead.
You may be right. I am no expert.
>
> > – 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.
The problem with the lion situation is that we are inferring our moral
values on it - I do not feel that they are compatible. I think we should
look at our morals deeper first:
Alleged mass murderer to go on trial:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1417000/1417460.stm
Alleged mass murderer pops in for tea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1232000/1232511.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1405000/1405808.stm
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
