Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:30:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1585 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
Ah, now I see. That's what I get for jumping in mid-stride. I was
approaching the issue as if you were espousing your own view, rather than
pointing out the implications of an opposing view. Oops.
> > 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?
I would sum up by saying that it is not all gray, and no *distinct* line
exists (ie: one that can be precisely articulated).
> > 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'".
I don't equate the lack of unhappiness with the presence of happiness, any
more than I equate the lack of pain with the presence of pleasure. That is,
we don't have, say, 100 points of "feeling" that we must divide between
happiness and unhappiness, such that we need not say "I am 63% happy and
therefore I am 37% unhappy." Anyway, even if we could think of happiness in
terms of a lack of unhappiness, who experiences life like that? That would
be like saying "I put one apple on the table; therefore, I actually took
negative-infinity-minus-one apples off the table." It might, in some
fashion, not be inaccurate, but it's not really a useful description of the
event, either!
Happiness and unhappiness are not mutually exclusive except as they apply
to the same single event, and not necessarily even then, since ambivalence
is possible, too. Therefore, it is necessary to delineate between the
feelings even if we cannot say conclusively and in all cases where a line
might be drawn. As a gradient system, it is sufficient for us to judge on a
case-by-case basis using a series of criteria, rather than by establishing a
single inviolable standard.
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
|
|
|
|
