Subject:
|
Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:50:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
861 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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.
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 explanation either.
Are these examples of morals? Or just of bonding? I don't know.
Good examples, though.
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|