Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:40:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1169 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry wrote:
> If I similarly exploit a clearly non sentient organism and rightless, a
> blade of grass for example, there is no difference. This neatly extends to
> any other organism that doesn't have rights. No might makes right involved.
> It's simply a case of exploitation of resources that belong to me.
For the sake of staying within what I consider dubious givens, I would say that
it was impossible for you to acquire ownership of sentient (the real
meaning, not your vernacular one) beings (cows) without excercising some kind
of 'might makes right' agression. You are saying that your ability to own a
cow makes it right, regardless of what the cow desires.
> Killing ones own food animals for food is not an amoral act because it is
> not *amoral* to wish to sustain yourself with the fruits of your labor.
Really? I think it is. It isn't an issue of morality at all. Just like the
lion and the wildebeest.
> Rather, it is profoundly moral to wish to live and to further that end in a
> non violent non rights abrogating way.
Uh oh. Another term being misused. What exactly do you think that violent
means? Or does it only apply to humans? Is it impossible for me to be violent
to a dog?
> Not amoral, not immoral, but moral.
> Just and right to do so, just as it is just and right to exploit grass or
> rocks, as it is appropriate to live, and immoral to wish to die...
So if you have the ability to sustain yourself in this "profoundly moral"
fruits of your labor way, following either of two paths: one in which you
produce/buy enough foodstuff to sustain yourself and in so doing cause great
amounts of pain (but only to cows), or one in which the pain is avoided, is one
choice more or less moral than the other?
Also, why is it immoral to wish to die? It seems that you mean something very
different than I do by morality.
> Till then it is right and proper to
> eat cows as they are totally clueless and have been bred to be so.
So cluefullness is the criterion? Have you ever answered the 'what about
retarded humans' question? How?
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
