Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:30:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1252 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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).
>
> Didn't I explain this before?
Sort of, but you seem to keep forcing the choice to be made between only
two options in a field of possibilities.
> I'm asking Larry where the line he's imagining is, not saying anything about
> what I believe with that statement-- And again, *IF* one asserts that
> animals do *NOT* have rights, *and* that humans *DO*, at some point in
> between the two, rights emerge. No? Am I wrong to assume such?
Not necessarily wrong, but the attempt is misguided if it seeks to form a
hard distinction where none exists. You're correct that rights "emerge,"
and in fact that's a good word for it. They do not burst full-formed onto
the scene, but rather form and are derived over a period of time and a range
of developmental stages.
> And as I said before, my question does not require rights to be
> non-developmental-- but the assertion that they *DON'T* *EXIST* at the level
> of animals necessarily requires them to "pop in" at some point between the
> two ends. At some point it *EXISTS*, even if not fully developed.
That you assert that rights "pop in" is *BY DEFINITION* a false dichotomy
if you assert:
Within some range, rights do not exist
Within some range, rights do exist
Therefore:
Rights pop in at some "point"
You are, in this example, forcing a choice to be made at a single point as
if that were the only option. That is *not* the case, because even if my
"spectrum of rights" isn't the answer, it is another choice, which the
example paraphased above does not allow. Therefore it is a false dichotomy,
because it forces a choice between two options as if those were the only two
options.
> The only exception I can think of (feel free to correct me if you think of
> another) is that the "flow" between animals and humans is not a "flow" at
> all, but rather two separate things all together. I.E. you don't accept
> evolutionary theory, which *does* provide a "gradient" between "animals" and
> "humans" along which such an existance (of rights) suddenly exists. No?
If evolution were not the case, then your example would be sound; human is
human, animal is animal, and never the twain shall meet.
Conversely, that is an *excellent* example of gradation. There is no
"missing link" between any two species, because the "missing link" is a red
herring. The distinction between species, such as it is, is manufactured
according to various criteria we accept, such as breeding viability,
biochemical similarity, general morphology, etc. However, I would not
generally assert that you are a lemur.
> If no line may be drawn, that implies that rights *always* exist in *all*
> things, to different degrees, yes?
No. You can (and we do) have full color gradation from pure white to flat
black--at which point do you say "this is not gray." To say that a point
exists is fine, if you can demonstrate it.
> And that *IS* what I'm arguing. But Larry didn't say that. I'm asking Larry
> where his line is, because I believe his stance *does* in fact require a
> line, even if he can't pin it down (as he has admitted). Does it not need to
> exist? If not, please explain how.
This rhetorical tactic seeks to force an analog situation into a digital
framework. Are you ever happy, and are you ever not happy? Is there a line
to be drawn? If not, then by your definition it seems you must be happy all
the time, even when you are totally unhappy.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
