Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:23:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
962 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
Ah, excellent. But then see below.
> > 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.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11305
And for those (like me) who hate to follow links:
Scott:
> > > There is nothing amoral about a lion killing a wilder beast with all its
Chris:
> > I think there is. 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. But calling the lion, in this case, amoral makes it sound like it
> has a choice?
So, in that case, perhaps I should ask this: Were you wrong to agree? Or
were to agreeing with something else? Were you agreeing that amorality is
not immorality? Was that even an issue? Sounded to me like you were agreeing
that the lion's action in such a case was amoral, seeing as that was the
point being discussed.
> > 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.
So morality is only useful insofar as how we judge ourselves? It would be
conceited, rude, and incorrect to assume me being immoral for torturing a
baby? How about if I *told* you I felt immoral? Can you *then* pass
judgement on *me* based on *my* morality?
> > 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.
Are individual morals restricted to gut reactions? Do people's individual
moral senses change with respect to informed debates? Is the issue, then,
not that individual morality *is* concieted, but that "gut reactions" or
"knee-jerk" morality is conceited?
> > 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.
So by being modest, one can avoid conceit-- but it is impossible to be
modest with respect to others?
> > 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.
Exactly. If you're saying that we can't judge on our *own* moral codes, but
instead must rely on social ones, aren't we at least in *part* relying on
our own moral codes, being a part of that society? To what extent do we
contribute to that code? And being a conceited code, does it not make the
social moral code conceited? And since *everyone's* moral codes are
conceited, are not all the contributors to the social code conceited? Is not
social code conceited? If not, then why say that not all morality is conceited?
> > Can we pass judgement on society?
>
> Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
Isn't passing judgement on soceity conceited and wrong of us?
> > 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.
No no-- you implied that a societal moral code was "better" somehow than our
own personal moral code. Is it? What about when societies differ? Or is
*each* societal moral code better than *each* individual moral code?
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
