Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:40:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
627 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
What is you point?
> (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)
To Ross : Don't expect Larry to justify anything.
>
> Then explain how the lion's "right", which clearly conflicts with the
> wildebeest's "right" to live, is still a right.
Larry, what are you taking about? Do you suggest the lion should eat grass?
Or that the wildebeest should carry a gun?
> My point is that rights
> don't conflict, and that animals do not use a system of rights in working
> things out.
Same as what? The same as you? Do you expect them to have a panel of
politically appointed judges to fudge decisions?
> 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.
Nice tirade Larry.
Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
