Subject:
|
Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:05:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
870 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Dan wrote:
> > But I don't think we invented the
> > condition of rights as much as they revealed themselves to us through nature.
> That's an interesting assertion. I am sure it should lead to some
> interesting discussion, because I'm not exactly clear on how you would go
> about showing this to be the case. Do you have any ideas on how to show this
> to be true? It may not be a provable assertion.
This is how I feel thus it is true to me. I think the fundemental condition
of "right" already existed in nature, as nature is our inspiration for
nearly everything else-- art, music, even science. Our arts often try to
capture that essence
<snipped my comment>
> Yes, we're pretty clear that you hold that viewpoint, thanks for reiterating
> it...
Well, I think we've both done a fair share of reiterating on this subject.
I've explained my viewpoint to my satisfaction and you've explained yours to
your satisfaction and that's the best we can hope for. If the outcome of
this conversation is to somehow prove what a "right" is according to you and
that I am inaccurate, then we are missing the beauty of just being able to
discuss and share ideas on this topic. Sometimes it's nice to stop and smell
the roses.
> but again I don't see how it adds much to the discussion of the narrow
> point of whether "all organisms have the right to reproduce". I say they
> don't, they only have the ability, or the right to try, if you'd rather.
Likewise, we're pretty clear that you hold that viewpoint, thanks for
reiterating it.
Dan
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
