Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:40:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
960 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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?
Yes, I do. However, I do not understand how that answered the question. Were
you saying "None of the above"? What were you saying? Should I just infer
what you were talking about? I asked for clarification.
>
> > 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."
That is a re-quote, not clarification. What part of my post didn't you
understand? You obviously have some sort of notion as to whether or not
animals have morals, I'm just trying to find out what that notion is.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
If you feel other societies are "clearly questionable" then you have already
made a comparison - it's only natural. When looking at something new,
regardless of what it is, you (generic "you") compare it to what you know.
That is how you form a like/dislike for something.
> 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
|
|
|
|
