Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:41:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1210 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
? So you were able to agree that the lion's view is amoral, but at the same
time you think that such a statement should not be made? Are you saying "If
I had to guess, I'd say it was amoral, but I don't think I should be forced
to guess, as the guessing of such forces a moral,immoral, or amoral state
upon the lion, none of which may be in order"?
> 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.
Personally, I'll disagree. I don't think it can be a comparison of much
"fact" so much as hypothesis, but I would be so bold as to assign morality
of similar nature to our own to animals-- just not as highly developed.
> > > > 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.
Excellent. As I've advocated many times, taking something to the extreme is
the only way to test its validity. If it doesn't hold at the extremes, it
doesn't hold.
> 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?
Living up to *my* standards? No. However, the question is, of what use is
the ability to judge morally? By your account, it would seem that the only
"correct" application of moral judgement is on one's own self. Is that a
fair assessment of your position?
If so, what place is it of yours to tell me to keep my moral judgements to
myself? Is it not "wrong" of you (incorrect, not immoral-- unless you *mean*
immoral) to place such a judgement?
> > How about if I *told* you I felt immoral? Can you *then* pass
> > judgement on *me* based on *my* morality?
>
> No.
Here's where I'll disagree *kinda*. Personally, I've agreed with you thus
far with regards to moral judgement. However, since I agree that judging
*ourselves* with our own moral judgement is "correct", I would also agree
that judging someone else by their own moral standards is *also* correct.
Does that mean accepting what they *tell* you per se? No. But the better
idea of their morality you have, the more "accurately" you can judge them
morally. Hence, if I think someone's violating their own moral code, I think
they're immoral. Are they? Only insofar as my assessment is correct. I will
of course concede that I may be wrong.
> 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.
So. What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
societal morality? Is your (you Scott's) morality not a product of the
society in which you were brought up?
> 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”.
I'll merely attempt to make a further clarification, since it's what I
believe: do you intend to say that moralizing is *conceited* or *incorrect*?
Does moralizing *necessarily* imply conceit?
> > > > 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.
Wait a sec-- so it depends? On what? What will/will not allow me to pass
judgement on a society? From what you say above, it would sound like you
should have said that such would be moralizing and hence at least conceited,
if not my implied "incorrect".
DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
