Debate : 11344


Off-Topic / Debate / 11344	11343 \| 11345

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:19:47 GMT
Viewed:	907 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: > > Chris: > > > > Neither the lion nor the wildebeest is concerned with > > > > morality. It is an action completely without moral regard. It is > > > > therefore amoral. But not immoral. > > > > Scott: > > > I agree. > > My position is that we should not infer human characteristics on animals. We > should judge them by their standards - not ours. No no, your position on whether animals are moral/immoral OR amoral. Do you think they are moral/immoral or amoral? If your position is in fact the one above then you wouldn't be allowing yourself to even HAVE an opinion on the issue, and yet above you attribute amorality to the wildebeest's action, and at the same time disagree with Larry, which means you hold that animals MAY be moral, allowing for attribution of moral consideration. You can perhaps save yourself by saying that you meant that the ACTION, but not the ANIMAL is amoral, but then you still run into the issue above. > > Don't all morally conscious > > creatures pass moral judgement? > > By doing so we infer our morals on them - rather conceited I think. Ah, so all morality is conceited? If not, please clarify. > > If not, then what's the point (read use) of > > having a moral judgement? If so, then what standard can we judge against > > except our own? > > The morals of the societies we live in - not our individual morals. Ah. So judging by the moral standards of society, we arrive at a morality which is not conceited? In order to avoid conceit we must judge according to that which others believe, and not ourselves, at least not solely? To what extent are we a member of that society? To what extent are certain others? Can we pass judgement on society? How about the abscence of society? Whose society? DaveE

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) I'm not sure what infering our morals on them really means, but I do agree that we are anthropocentric in our judgement of other critters. But I'm not sure a) that this is a bad thing, or b) that it is possible to get away from. How would we (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Good restatement. Good luck getting a straight answer though. I agree that we ought not to infer or impute human characteristics of animals unless they are demonstrably present. That's why I think of animals as amoral, because I tend to (with (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) None. Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that belongs in childrens books. (...) I can't find the post you refer to. (...) No, inferring ones own morals on others is. If an individual makes a donation to a charity they (...) (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?
(...) (23 years ago, 3-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