Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:43:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1611 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
I never said they *must* emerge in their "fully developed" state-- only that
they must, at some point, be considered "self-aware" at some *point*. And
again, that's only assuming that at one point they *DON'T* exist AT ALL, and
at another point they *DO* exist in full swing. I never argued that they
must instantly appear in full effect-- merely asked at what point they were
considered by Larry to be acknowledgable as "self-aware".
> 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.
My entire point was exactly so.
Assumption #1: In humanity, rights exist
Assumption #2: In "lesser" "animals" rights do *not* exist. At all.
Conclusion: At some intermediary point, rights exist; Even if not fully
developed.
Now, Larry *did* *indeed* make both assumptions #1 & #2. The only reason I'm
forcing those upon him is because he forced those assumptions on himself
previously. I was merely forcing him to acknowledge the existance of a line
provided his assumptions. He's perfectly able to say "Oh well wait, maybe I
*don't* want to make those assumptions" Which in fact he kinda did when
acknowledging later that animals may have "lesser" rights.
Hence, I was very much so forcing Larry to admit that given the above
assumptions, a line MUST exist. Larry therefore had 4 options:
1. Disagree with assumption #1
2. Disagree with assumption #2
3. Disagree with the conclusion (The only way to do this is by saying that
no gradient exists between animals and humans, I.E. they're not on the same
line. But I don't expect Larry to say this.)
4. Agree that a line exists, even if he can't define it.
Larry first chose #4, but then apparently went back and chose kind of a
combination between #2 and #4.
> Therefore it is a false dichotomy, because it forces a choice between two
> options as if those were the only two options.
Actually, huh? I don't really think I was giving him a choice at all--
except in where he wanted to draw the line. I was trying to show the
inevitable conclusion that must be drawn using his own assumptions. By
asking him where the line was, wasn't I only giving him *one* option? Or, I
suppose, the other option I was giving was to disagree with the premises,
but I think *your* point was that I wasn't allowing that as a viable option?
> > 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.
Let's work with that example. The example turns into:
- Gray is defined as a mix of both white and black
- Black contains no white
- White contains no black
And hence, my arguement is, that *if* no line can be drawn, it's ALL gray,
yes? Whereas your argument is that it's not all gray, AND no line exists?
Yes? Is not the line solely defined at the exact point of white and the
exact point of black? Now, *proving* *where* that line exists in *fact* is
another point entirely. I never said that one must show *where* the line is
in order to *acknowledge* that the line exists. Personally, I *can't* show
you "perfect white" or "perfect black", because I personally can't verify.
But I *do* know that there is a line between "black" and "gray" and "white".
It's just hard to pin down in actuality.
> 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.
Different ball of wax, I would say-- although defining happiness
differently, perhaps valid. Similar to saying "it's hot" and "it's cold". Is
it always "cold"? Of course, but only because cold is a relative term. Cold
is only cold compared to something warmer than it. Likewise, I think
unhappiness is only unhappiness when compared to something happier. In the
temperature example, it would be misleading to say "it's always cold", but
it would be "more right" to say "it's always some temperature". Likewise,
one would say "I'm always feeling some degree of happiness, even if
'unhappy', 'neutral', or 'happy'". Anyway, Larry's point was not that rights
are relative, but that they actually simply don't exist when sampled at
point "animal".
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
|
|
|
|
