Debate : 11406


Off-Topic / Debate / 11406	11405 \| 11407

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:54:31 GMT
Viewed:	1385 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes: > > 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. Totally not following this. If something is unable, it clearly lacks. In what way is amoral an insufficient category to contain rocks, amoeba, grass and sheep (positing sheep are not self aware)? > 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? If there is he hasn't given it. I would like to hear it (stated positively, that is, not in terms of what it is not), so tests could be applied to see if it really does add another equivalence class to the partition. I reiterate, I see there being only 3 partitions here, and if one answers "is it A, B, or C" with "none" the onus is on that person to say what sort of thing it is, then. (arguably I'd even lump moral and immoral together for the purposes of partitioning and go down to two classes. There are things that morality is relevant to, and things that it isn't. There are no other possibilities) ++Lar

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) Lacking, in my mind, means that something is able to have - just in a deficient or reduced manner. Unable is just that - without the ablity to have. The ability didn't exist in the first place. Like I said, I can see the distiction. I don't (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) I do not think that "lack" is strong enough to suggest that. But, even if it is I still think it is negative. (...) I have. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) 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 (...) (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