Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:58:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1462 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > Aha... now we've reached a potential crux. What do and do not have rights?
> > Does a dog? How about a baby? Does a retarded human? Cro-magnon man?
>
> This, once again, is the false dichotomy at work. Are you not asking that
> a line be drawn as a crossroads between sentient and non-sentient (ie:
> crux)? It was my impression that you'd already agreed no such line could be
> drawn, even though a distinction clearly exists (albeit admittedly bounded
> by gray areas).
I agree that the boundary may not be as sharp as some may prefer.
But is there a distinction? That is, are there things that do not have
rights, in and of themselves?
I'm in the camp that holds that there are. Rocks don't have rights, in and
of themselves. (further, it's, from one perspective, a meaningless question
to ask if they do) Moral people do. Somewhere in between there is a boundary
or at least a gray area that delineates...
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
