Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:03:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1278 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > ? So you were able to agree that the lion's view is amoral, but at the same
> > time you think that such a statement should not be made? Are you saying "If
> > I had to guess, I'd say it was amoral, but I don't think I should be forced
> > to guess, as the guessing of such forces a moral,immoral, or amoral state
> > upon the lion, none of which may be in order"?
>
> That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that it "can not be viewed
> within a moral framework". If we take amoral as meaning this:
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=amoral*1+0
So, you think that the lion's morality cannot be judged as it does not exist
within any moral framework? Or do you mean to say that we simply don't know
if that framework exists or not? If the former, I think your disagreement
with Larry is potentially flawed. If the latter, then your agreement with
Chris's initial statement is off.
> > > > So morality is only useful insofar as how we judge ourselves? It would be
> > > > conceited, rude, and incorrect to assume me being immoral for torturing a
> > > > baby?
> > >
> > > You are taking an argument to its illogical extreme.
> >
> > Excellent. As I've advocated many times, taking something to the extreme is
> > the only way to test its validity. If it doesn't hold at the extremes, it
> > doesn't hold.
>
> Taking it to its logical extreme is - illogical extreme is not (in my
> opinion).
Really... I've always found the opposite. Obviously the logical (read
realistic) extremes are more important because they have a higher
probability of existing, but I don't think that devaluates the illogical
(read nearly impossible) extremes to the point of valueless-- especially
when it comes to philisophic issues.
> > Living up to *my* standards? No. However, the question is, of what use is
> > the ability to judge morally? By your account, it would seem that the only
> > "correct" application of moral judgement is on one's own self. Is that a
> > fair assessment of your position?
>
> Why should it not be? Most of us judge ourself far herder than anyone else
> does. But if I were in the wrong, I would expect friends and family to
> question me in some way - but not strangers.
So judging people is "more ok" when judging those you know well? I.E. family
and friends vs. strangers? Against what moral standard should they be judged?
> > If so, what place is it of yours to tell me to keep my moral judgements to
> > myself? Is it not "wrong" of you (incorrect, not immoral-- unless you *mean*
> > immoral) to place such a judgement?
>
> I am not say you should keep you moral judgements to yourself, I am saying
> you should not judge others based on your own morals.
I should not judge others based on my own morals? Why not? What are the
consequences of my judgement of others? By saying that I "should not" you
insinuate that by your judgement, something bad will result-- I just want to
clarify what that "bad" is. If you're implying being morally "bad", then
you've just gone against what you've stated. If you're implying "wrong",
then that's fine with me-- it's what I think. If you want to judge people by
your own moral code, go right ahead. You'll just be incorrect to a certain
extent.
> > > Individual morals, I expect, flow mainly from our parents and/or religion. I
> > > do not think that individual morality is necessarily conceited, but I can
> > > see how it could be argued that it is.
> >
> > So. What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
> > societal morality? Is your (you Scott's) morality not a product of the
> > society in which you were brought up?
>
> Not really. Within my liftime many past "sins" have become the norm.
#1: What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
societal morality?
#2: Is your own morality a product (in full or in part) of societal morality?
You say no to number 2? Or yes? I admit I phrased that badly-- Sounded like
you meant no? If not, how do you think your moral code developed?
> > I'll merely attempt to make a further clarification, since it's what I
> > believe: do you intend to say that moralizing is *conceited* or *incorrect*?
> > Does moralizing *necessarily* imply conceit?
>
> I think it does. Vegetarianism is a bad example, but many other moral issues
> are just based of pejudice or gut feeling.
I don't think so. For instance, I can moralize on you and say something you
did is immoral. However, because of my particular beliefs, my assessment is
based on my perception of your own moral code. And as such, I allow myself
to be wrong, hence "cancelling out" conceit as far as I'm concerned.
Basically, the more you're willing to admit you're wrong, the less conceited
you are. If I *insist* that you're immoral, that's conceited. If I *think*
you're immoral, I'm not conceited. Or perhaps merely not *so* conceited.
> > > > > > Can we pass judgement on society?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't passing judgement on soceity conceited and wrong of us?
> > >
> > > That depends, I think we have to respect cultural morals as much as we can.
> >
> > Wait a sec-- so it depends? On what? What will/will not allow me to pass
> > judgement on a society? From what you say above, it would sound like you
> > should have said that such would be moralizing and hence at least conceited,
> > if not my implied "incorrect".
>
> There are many great cultures around us. Many have morals which do not match
> our own - but I say "live and let live". But when these cultures use
> "morals" to persecute individuals - I feel that is wrong.
So we *can* pass judgement on societies, but we're conceited for doing so,
just like when passing judegement on others, yes?
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
