Debate : 11325


Off-Topic / Debate / 11325	11324 \| 11326

Subject:	Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:07:19 GMT
Viewed:	875 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > (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) OK. You asserted "animals are amoral" with nothing to back it up. Go type "dog hero" into your favourite search engine, look through the list of hits. Many acts can be explained by (the dog exhibiting) self preservation, but what causes a dog to jump into a flooding river & drag out a human? What causes a dog to drag a human back home after he experienced a heart attack? Their morals may not be as complex as ours, but that doesn't make them non-existent. To those who assert humans have "fundamental rights", I'd ask 3 questions: 1. What are these fundamental rights; 2. When did humans get them; and 3. How did humans get them? ROSCO

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) Good examples! Dogs are pack animals, it is true. Is that sufficient to explain these behaviours? I don't know. Saving one's meal ticket would exhibit forethought. Do dogs have such? The conventional answer is that they don't, so that's not an (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
(...) I think that until we have clear evidence that animals understand morality, we have to assume that they probably don't. Even if an animal does lots of nice things, I wouldn't call it moral unless it had the ability to decide to do not-nice (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) 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. (To Ross, it's more reasonable to ask that you (...) (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