Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:01:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1113 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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?
None. Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that
belongs in childrens books.
>
> 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.
I can't find the post you refer to.
>
> > > 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.
No, inferring ones own morals on others is. If an individual makes a
donation to a charity they deem worthy - good for them. But it is wrong of
them to pass judgement on me for not doing the same.
>
> > > 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?
No, we arrive at a set of moral which has been reached, one would hope,
after some sort of informed debate - not a gut reaction.
> In order to avoid conceit we must judge according to
> that which others believe, and not ourselves, at least not solely?
To avoid conceit, one only has to be modest.
> To what
> extent are we a member of that society?
I vote. I pay tax. I work for the good of my society. I rely on it. It
relies on me. I am a member.
> To what extent are certain others?
What others? Selfish people?
> Can we pass judgement on society?
Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
> How about the abscence of society? Whose
> society?
Now I get when you are taking about. Great societies, just like great
cultures, differ a great deal. One should try to respect this (if possible).
It is no big deal. It is called tolerance.
Scott A
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
