Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:48:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1338 times
|
| |
|
|
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > 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.
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > Hmmm. Maybe. But I'd use the example of Newtonian physics to say even though
> > it doesn't hold in extreme conditions, it's generally "good enough" for
> > everyday life. Maybe that also holds for this situation...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Working the analogy a bit more, Newtonian physics is valid in a certain
> regime. The "extreme conditions" where it is invalid are outside that
> regime. Set the boundary conditions correctly and everything's fine. Can we
> do that here? (I tend to think we can... canonical example being the yelling
> of "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't protected free speech and the "boundary
> conditions" tell you why it isn't)
Use salt as needed...
Following that statement, would you also conclude that "might makes right?"
You stated previously that we'd be "merely animal" to follow that notion,
but maybe you'd now say it's situational? Or were you referring to "might
makes right" in situations involving only humans? My point is this issue is
not as black and white as we may wish it to be and perhaps I am not the only
one whose notion or definition is "flawed."
Remember the LUGNET discussion regarding vegans and eating meat? In order to
obtain the meat, we must push our might on other creatures. But if killing
is done for the sake of food and survival then "might makes right" for us.
We can further validate our attitude by presumptiously saying "Animals are
amoral" and therefore don't have rights. But HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. We are
flesh, blood and bone, like any fish or bird or monkey. You have used the
word animal in a derrogatory manner to describe lesser humans ("merely
animal"). In my opinion, the only purpose that serves is to validate foolish
assumptions about our "place" in the world. Should humans be so conceited?
How does such an attitude make the world better for people and the world
itself? I like Hobbes's reply to Calvin's question on man's reason for
being: "Tiger food."
Is it our intellect that earns us our so-called rights or is it force? How
many historical examples do we have of humans exercising might rather than
intellect to obtain "rights?" American history is replete with examples of
our "might making right." That's how we obtained this land afterall, not
because the Native Americans (who respected nature) thought Europeans were
more intelligent. So, now would you say that might makes right sometimes? Or
does the extreme still not validate the notion?
Is your view about animals also a situation where might makes right? We can
easily say "They don't have [blank] rights" and *poof* they don't have those
rights because we will treat them as such, not because the notion is sound. The
bottom line, the anthropocentric view is unsound and ignorant. It separates
man from nature, it makes other beings "lesser" and gives us the "grace" to
make those lesser beings our servants rather than partners. Such conceit may
be our undoing.
Dan
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
