Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:37:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
724 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I think we should
> > look at our morals deeper first:
>
> To what end? Your implication seems to be simply that there are bad people.
> But we all know that.
My aim was to show how western morels have treated these two so differently.
One is bought by the west so he can go on trial for murder, the other is
given ~3.5 billion dollars in aid per year so that he may continue to
murder. At the same time as we do this, we talk about the basic rights we
enjoy. Perhaps we are all amoral?
Scott A
> The discussion of what a 'right' actually is, has
> nothing to do (in my mind, at least) with whether or not certain people respect
> rights, or even what things we would like to call rights.
>
> Or did I miss the boat?
>
> Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
