Subject:
|
Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:54:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
673 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> OK. You asserted "animals are amoral" with nothing to back it up.
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 things as well. And even then, I think I'd lean toward not calling
something moral until I had evidence that it understood the concept of morality
and could discuss morals.
> To those who assert humans have "fundamental rights", I'd ask 3 questions:
You aren't asking me, since I dont' think that, but...
> 1. What are these fundamental rights;
The right to agree on rights?
> 2. When did humans get them; and
When they first organized sufficiently to construct a social pattern that we
now call rights.
> 3. How did humans get them?
Through thought and socialization.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
