To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 11394
11393  |  11395
Subject: 
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:06:43 GMT
Viewed: 
1018 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
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"?

That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that it "can not be viewed
within a moral framework". If we take amoral as meaning this:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=amoral*1+0

I view that as being negative.



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.

Taking it to its logical extreme is - illogical extreme is not (in my opinion).


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?

Why should it not be? Most of us judge ourself far herder than anyone else
does. But if I were in the wrong, I would expect friends and family to
question me in some way - but not strangers.


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?

I am not say you should keep you moral judgements to yourself, I am saying
you should not judge others based on your own morals.


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.

I shall let you be the judge of that. :-)


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?

Not really. Within my liftime many past "sins" have become the norm.


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?


I think it does. Vegetarianism is a bad example, but many other moral issues
are just based of pejudice or gut feeling.

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".

There are many great cultures around us. Many have morals which do not match
our own - but I say "live and let live". But when these cultures use
"morals" to persecute individuals -  I feel that is wrong.

Scott A



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
 
(...) within any moral framework? Or do you mean to say that we simply don't know if that framework exists or not? If the former, I think your disagreement with Larry is potentially flawed. If the latter, then your agreement with Chris's initial (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
 
(...) ? 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR