Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:39:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3998 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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)?
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 necessarily agree with it,
but I can see the point.
>
> > 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.
Agreed.
>
> (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)
I can go with that. Moral and immoral both imply that the relevant thing has
morals, accepted morals or morals which go against custom. Either way, it's
still a moral. Whether it's moral or immoral is a matter of perception.
Amoral on the other hand means that the relevant object has no morals
what-so-ever.
>
> ++Lar
-Duane
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
