Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:07:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1143 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
>
> > Following that statement, would you also conclude that "might makes right?"
>
> No, because I don't know of *any* boundary conditions where it would hold,
> contrasted with the many boundary conditions where "don't yell at your kids"
> is invalid, and the few boundary conditions where "free speech" is invalid.
Really? I'll propose the following:
"Might makes right"
- Application: killing animals for food
- Boundary:
- Within bounds: animals are not "self-aware" by Larry's definitions
Ex: cows, chickens, fish
- Outside bounds: animals are "aware enough" by Larry's definitions
Ex: Humans, dolphins, chimps
Hence, killing the animals is an amoral act, which, as I recall, is how you
intended the phrase "might makes right", more correctly translating to
"might makes reality"? Disagree, do you? Or were you assuming he meant
"might makes moral", to which I think nobody's even suggested, really.
Personally, I think this is an excellent example for comparing with
relativistic physics. I would agree that Larry's system (alright, my
*interpretation* of his system-- he may still deny it) generally holds for
me. HOWEVER, in the miniscule aspect, it's wrong. Does killing a human
violate my moral sense? Yes. Does killing a chicken? Yes, but to a lesser
degree. How about an insect? Yes, but even lesser. How about a carrot? Yes,
but even lesser. *SO* much lesser, in fact, that I might as well say that it
doesn't violate my moral code. It's up to me how far I can violate it before
it DOES become significant. And for me, it's in the same ballpark as Larry.
Within those set boundaries, I don't feel that I've violated my own moral
sense significantly. Just as in Newtonian/Relativistic physics-- within the
bounds of "acceptable tolerance", I might as well use the easier rule.
Hence, I *AM* violating my moral sense by killing (eating? maybe to some
degree) a chicken, but not sufficiently for me to call my own action immoral
by any "large" standards. The immoralness rounds down to 0 in my book.
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
|
|
|
|
