Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:07:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1166 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur 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?
> >
> > None. Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that
> > belongs in childrens books.
>
> First, you still haven't clarified what you were agreeing to above.
Really? Do you understand what "none" means?
> Second, by saying that animals ar not moral, immoral or amoral you do not
> add to the discussion by not stating what you beleive. I interpret your
> stance as either 1)animals have morals which are nothing like human morals,
> or 2)animals have not morals what-so-ever. Do either of those come close to
> the mark? Please clarify.
Duane, read what I wrote again:
"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.
>
> I think it stemmed from this post, or one of the follow-ups.
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11297
I did not find it as Dave talked about the "wildebeest's action" - it was in
fact the lion's.
> >
> > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> How about your judgement of them? You've already stated that it's "good for
> them" to donate to their charity. That in itself is a judgement.
Irony.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> Why are some societies questionable? Is it the societies moral standards? I
> find the morals of my own society to be in question as they do not
> necessarily reflect my one standards. Are you judging another society based
> upon the society that you belong to, or based upon your own standards?
I can not comapre my personal values with that of a society on a large scale
- you may if you wish.
Scott A
>
> >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> -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
|
|
|
|
