Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:33:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1322 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
I still agree with Larry's distictions between being moral, immoral and
amoral. Do you believe that things are either moral or immoral (to varying
degrees), with no room for an amoral definition? Or is there a fourth
definition in there somewhere?
OK, I can see the distiction you make with regard to the rock. Does this
imply that in order to have morals (even deficient ones) requires feelings?
-Duane
>
> 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 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
|
|
|
|
