Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:23:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1014 times
|
| |
| |
I'm very confused.
Chris:
> > 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.
Scott:
> I agree.
Larry:
> > Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral.
Scott:
> No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth.
Scott, please clarify. What *is* your position? Or is it merely whatever
Larry is *not*?
> 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 to?
Do you not do the same? Don't I? Doesn't Larry? Don't all morally conscious
creatures pass moral judgement? If not, then what's the point (read use) of
having a moral judgement? If so, then what standard can we judge against
except our own?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|