Subject:
|
Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:32:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
921 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Important point to keep in mind: amoral does not equal immoral.
> Immorality implies that the converse--morality--exists. But
> can't a competing, "dog idea" of morality exist? Why must human
> morality be ported to a dog, when moralism is socialized?
Well, the idea is (in my mind) that morality in general has some "root" to
it in order to be deemed morality at all. Heck, your morality is just as
misplaced when ported to me as when mine is ported to a dog. And yet we do
both. Are our moralities and dog's moralities *different*, or are their
morals a subset of our own? Or do we have common moral roots? What makes the
two things moral codes at all?
Oh, and btw, what do you mean by "when moralism is socialized"? I always
took morality to only be applicable in social situations-- therefore how
could one have morality without socialization?
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
