Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:08:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1292 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 is not subtle. However, saying they rock is
without morals is in itself negative - although I doubt the rock cares that
much.
It is that simple.
Scott A
{1} NB : A Lack does not necessarily equal none!
>
> "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:
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
|
|
|
|
