Debate : 11397


Off-Topic / Debate / 11397	11396 \| 11398

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:54:38 GMT
Viewed:	1322 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes: > 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. The cambridge link didn't work for me. When I went here: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=amoral I got these: 1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. 2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong. Seems to me that "moral", "immoral" and "amoral" form an equivalence class partition, that is, that every object, concept, action, etc, etc. can be partitioned into one of these three bins. If I understand Scott right, he is now (but not previously, see the contradiction Dave E originally posted) claiming there is another bin. He's not making it easy to follow him, but that's the gist of his argument as I understand it. I disagree. "amoral" is an awfully wide bin and includes rocks falling, for example, as well as the actions of all creatures that don't use morality in their internal processes that choose actions. I could be convinced otherwise but it would take some actual explanation of why things that don't have a moral system (like rocks) aren't therefore amoral (the definition, after all, says "without moral sensibility") rather than just sniping and then saying "you didn't get my point". Saying that rocks are amoral does not, in my view, strike me as an anthropomorphic claim, either. It just says "morals don't have meaning to rocks" without any claim about whether that is a human centric thing or not. ++Lar

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) I disagree. But I understand your point. Although the Cambridge link works for me, we can use your dictionary (above). It is not that your rock is "Lacking{1} moral sensibility" it is simply unable to have moral sensibility. The distinction (...) (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?
(...) 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. (...) That's probably because I can't tell (...) (23 years ago, 5-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