Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:08:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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
>
> Disagree that this is an application of such.
>
> Let us postulate that I own clear title to a piece of real property for the
> sake of what follows, to avoid the (legitimate, in my view) questions of was
> might involved in acquiring title. These questions OUGHT to be explored (I
> do not suppport what was done to the native americans in the course of our
> expansion but am not sure exactly how to unmake that particular omlette
> neatly) but not here, please.
You do not have to unmake that particular omelette, only share it. Knowing
your stance on property rights, I am amazed you are so lax on this{1}. Or is
the whole basis of your reality based on an action of "might makes right" -
even *if* we accept that all after that one action is pure?
Scott A
{1} This has all the makings of an issue the libertarian party could launch
a crusade on - it may even improve the think mix of your party?
> Further postulate for the sake of this discussion that there are no property
> usurping restrictions imposed by force by government on what I can do with
> my own property insofar as it does not injure others.
>
> Now, if I in my role as owner of that property, exploit it by, say, smashing
> a rock with my hammer to make gravel to decorate or improve another part,
> there is no "might makes right" involved. As long as I have clear title, and
> there are no deed restrictions, it is mine to do with as I wish.
>
> If I similarly exploit a clearly non sentient organism and rightless, a
> blade of grass for example, there is no difference. This neatly extends to
> any other organism that doesn't have rights. No might makes right involved.
> It's simply a case of exploitation of resources that belong to me.
>
> The only time that "might makes right" is involved is if I am exploiting
> something that has rights. In which case it's a different scenario not a
> boundary condition. Important distinction.
>
> Killing ones own food animals for food is not an amoral act because it is
> not *amoral* to wish to sustain yourself with the fruits of your labor.
> Rather, it is profoundly moral to wish to live and to further that end in a
> non violent non rights abrogating way. Not amoral, not immoral, but moral.
> Just and right to do so, just as it is just and right to exploit grass or
> rocks, as it is appropriate to live, and immoral to wish to die if one is
> not guilty of any transgression.
>
> Now, I would be happy to eat steak grown in a vat (from an original donor
> cell) rather than sliced from carcasses, and would welcome such a
> development, but that's not here yet. Till then it is right and proper to
> eat cows as they are totally clueless and have been bred to be so.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
