Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:02:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1167 times
|
| |
|
|
Tom,
try reading the whole thread before you jump in with your one-liners.
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> So inferring ones own morals on others is conceited, but inferring "your
> society's" is not? Why not?
>
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> So soceity is conceited? If not, why not? If inferring an individual's morals on
> another is conceited, why is inferring a society's morals on another NOT
> conceited?
>
>
> > > Can we pass judgement on society?
> >
> > Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
>
> Rather conceited, don't you think?
>
>
> "I don't thin that word means what you thin it means."
>
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
