Debate : 11306


Off-Topic / Debate / 11306	11305 \| 11307

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:13:54 GMT
Viewed:	918 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > The problem with the lion situation is that we are inferring our moral > values on it - I do not feel that they are compatible. Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral. They do not have morals or recognise rights the way that creatures with a developed reasoning system do. Note that to be amoral if you are not capable of being moral is not bad, it is not good, it just is. So no judgement of animals is intended by saying that they are amoral. On the other hand I am quite happy to pass judgement on amoral humans. To wit: I find them not completely human.

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth. (...) You "pass judgement" on others too much. Who are you to infer your moral values on others - judging them by your own standard? Do you assume you are the role model they should aspire (...) (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?
(...) I agree. But calling the lion, in this case, amoral makes it sound like it has a choice? (...) Dead animals don’t run away. Dead animals don’t jab you with their big pointy horns. (...) You may be right. I am no expert. (...) The problem with (...) (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