Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2001 08:18:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3285 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
I'm glad *you* can understand what "none" means.
>
> > > 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.
You are correct, it is not all that clear what I mean (from my perspective).
I was agreeing that the lion's view can not be viewed within a moral
framework, but I also think they should not be compared to one. I think it
is misleading to do so. Despite that, I admit that before this debate I
would have agreed that a lion’s own morals as we understand them. But now I
will go further than that and say we should not compare the way they
(animals) make decisions to our morals in anyway.
>
> > > 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?
You are taking an argument to its illogical extreme. None of us like to be
told that our morals do not live up to the high standard of others. To a
large extent, it is up to us how to live our lives, and I am not about to
pass judgement on anyone because they to not live to my moral standards. Do you?
> How about if I *told* you I felt immoral? Can you *then* pass
> judgement on *me* based on *my* morality?
No.
>
> > > 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?
Individual morals, I expect, flow mainly from our parents and/or religion. I
do not think that individual morality is necessarily conceited, but I can
see how it could be argued that it is.
>
> > > 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?
It is possible to be modest and respect 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?
That it is up to us.
> 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?
I do not think morality is conceited, I think moralising is. I *personally*
may not believe in sex before marriage (say) - it does not mean I have to
think any less of anyone for doing so. One could say the same about
vegetarianism. I have a lot of respect fore people who are able to stick to
a vegetarian diet, but I do get annoyed when I am told “meat is murder”.
>
> > > Can we pass judgement on society?
> >
> > Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
>
> Isn't passing judgement on soceity conceited and wrong of us?
That depends, I think we have to respect cultural morals as much as we can.
But I am quite happy for the moral code which is devloping in Afghanistan
right now is being judged.
>
> > > 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?
I suppose that is what laws are for. If we all followed the same moral code,
we would not need them I expect.
Scott A
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
