Subject:
|
Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:16:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
968 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> However, one does not need to be "self-conscious" (not that you said one
> needed to) in order to be moral-- it merely helps. BTW, how would one define
> self consciousness?
Before someone points out my error, I'll just correct myself here. It can be
argued, and come to think of it, I think *should* be argued that
self-consciousness *is* the prerequisite (sp?) of which I was speaking-- I
merely was assuming a "higher" definition of self-consiousness above.
Actually, the ability to recognize others' wants as having value requires by
definition, I think, the ability to distinguish one's own self from others,
and as such, should perhaps be what we mean be self-aware. Hence, in order
to be self-aware, we must in actuality be aware of others. Make sense?
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
