Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:35:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1252 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > > > > Chris:
> > > > > > > > > > Neither the lion nor the wildebeest is concerned with
> > > > > > > > > > morality. It is an action completely without moral regard. It is
> > > > > > > > > > therefore amoral. But not immoral.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scott:
> > > > > > > > > I agree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My position is that we should not infer human characteristics on animals. We
> > > > > > > should judge them by their standards - not ours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No no, your position on whether animals are moral/immoral OR amoral. Do you
> > > > > > think they are moral/immoral or amoral?
> > > > >
> > > > > None. Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that
> > > > > belongs in childrens books.
> > > >
> > > > First, you still haven't clarified what you were agreeing to above.
> > >
> > > Really? Do you understand what "none" means?
> >
> > Yes, I do. However, I do not understand how that answered the question. Were
> > you saying "None of the above"? What were you saying? Should I just infer
> > what you were talking about? I asked for clarification.
>
> You need to be clearer then.
What don't you understand? And how did "none" answer the question? I'm still
confused Scott. Am I to infer your meaning? I've asked several times now for
clarification and you have not even tried.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Second, by saying that animals ar not moral, immoral or amoral you do not
> > > > add to the discussion by not stating what you beleive. I interpret your
> > > > stance as either 1)animals have morals which are nothing like human morals,
> > > > or 2)animals have not morals what-so-ever. Do either of those come close to
> > > > the mark? Please clarify.
> > >
> > > Duane, read what I wrote again:
> > >
> > > "Calling an animal moral/immoral/amoral is anthropomorphic - that belongs in
> > > childrens books."
> >
> > That is a re-quote, not clarification. What part of my post didn't you
> > understand? You obviously have some sort of notion as to whether or not
> > animals have morals, I'm just trying to find out what that notion is.
>
> I have answered this already.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your position is in fact the one above then you wouldn't be allowing
> > > > > > yourself to even HAVE an opinion on the issue, and yet above you attribute
> > > > > > amorality to the wildebeest's action, and at the same time disagree with
> > > > > > Larry, which means you hold that animals MAY be moral, allowing for
> > > > > > attribution of moral consideration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can perhaps save yourself by saying that you meant that the ACTION, but
> > > > > > not the ANIMAL is amoral, but then you still run into the issue above.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find the post you refer to.
> > > >
> > > > I think it stemmed from this post, or one of the follow-ups.
> > > > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11297
> > >
> > > I did not find it as Dave talked about the "wildebeest's action" - it was in
> > > fact the lion's.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > To what
> > > > > > extent are we a member of that society?
> > > > >
> > > > > I vote. I pay tax. I work for the good of my society. I rely on it. It
> > > > > relies on me. I am a member.
> > > > >
> > > > > > To what extent are certain others?
> > > > >
> > > > > What others? Selfish people?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Can we pass judgement on society?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
> > > >
> > > > Why are some societies questionable? Is it the societies moral standards? I
> > > > find the morals of my own society to be in question as they do not
> > > > necessarily reflect my one standards. Are you judging another society based
> > > > upon the society that you belong to, or based upon your own standards?
> > >
> > > I can not comapre my personal values with that of a society on a large scale
> > > - you may if you wish.
> >
> >
> > If you feel other societies are "clearly questionable" then you have already
> > made a comparison - it's only natural. When looking at something new,
> > regardless of what it is, you (generic "you") compare it to what you know.
> > That is how you form a like/dislike for something.
>
> You are missing the point.
That's probably because I can't tell what your point is.
>
> Scott A
>
> >
> > > Scott A
> >
> > -Duane
-Duane
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
