Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:28:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1206 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 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?
> >
> > Good restatement. Good luck getting a straight answer though.
>
> Larry,
> At this point I am tempted to dig up all the old posts you have not answered
> - where the questions were *very* direct. All those ones were you were
> unable to justify yourself. Unable to back you own argument. Unable to show
> us your strengths as a critical thinker. But, you will be glad to hear, I >won't.
I for one would actually like to see you do that. Demonstrate away....
>
> >
> > 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 some room for doubt) hold morality as a
> > human trait. To say something is amoral is not a judgement, it's merely
> > saying that morality doesn't apply to that thing. That is, that we are not
> > applying a human characteristic to a non human thing.
> >
> > The arguments or examples advanced for some animals being moral seem to
> > focus on animals most like us, as Frank said... animals that have
> > significantly well developed higher brain functions, animals that you can
> > argue don't live completely in the present but can anticipate possible
> > futures (beyond "the rabbit will come out of this hole"), animals that have
> > some sort of proto-society (packs or herds with dominant members) and so forth.
> >
> > I COULD just take that as my escape clause and say that when I said animals
> > are amoral I didn't mean these sort of animals that have some human traits,
> > because they're not quite fully animal.
> >
> > But I won't. I'll instead ask what is necessary for morality to develop?
> > Here are some possibles: Reasoning ability, the ability to think in the
> > abstract, Language, the ability to understand consequences, the ability to
> > use logic...
>
> Language 1st I expect, the others require language to really take off. At
> least that is my understanding our minds, I think!, need a language to be
> able articulate ideas.
Speaking of language, could you try re-stating that again? That is a very
difficult sentence to read - and I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
>
> Scott A
>
> > Not an exhaustive list, and some duplication is present. Not
> > sure that's a well formed way to look at the question either. Might spark
> > some thought. This sort of addresses Ross's questions (and I liked Chris's
> > answers) but at a more building block level.
Leave it to Larry to bring this all back on topic... "Building block level"
indeed...
<snip>
> >
> > ++Lar
-Duane
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
