Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:05:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1366 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > >
> > > > What don't you understand? And how did "none" answer the question? I'm still
> > > > confused Scott. Am I to infer your meaning? I've asked several times now for
> > > > clarification and you have not even tried.
> > >
> > > The cambridge link didn't work for me. When I went here:
> > >
> > > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=amoral
> > >
> > > I got these:
> > >
> > > 1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
> > > 2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
> > >
> > > Seems to me that "moral", "immoral" and "amoral" form an equivalence class
> > > partition, that is, that every object, concept, action, etc, etc. can be
> > > partitioned into one of these three bins. If I understand Scott right, he is
> > > now (but not previously, see the contradiction Dave E originally posted)
> > > claiming there is another bin. He's not making it easy to follow him, but
> > > that's the gist of his argument as I understand it.
> > >
> > > I disagree.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I still agree with Larry's distictions between being moral, immoral and
> amoral.
Are you saying the dictionary larry quoted is wrong? Are you saying the one
I quoted is wrong?
Scott A
> 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?
>
> OK, I can see the distiction you make with regard to the rock. Does this
> imply that in order to have morals (even deficient ones) requires feelings?
>
> -Duane
>
> >
> > It is that simple.
> >
> > Scott A
> >
> > {1} NB : A Lack does not necessarily equal none!
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "amoral" is an awfully wide bin and includes rocks falling, for example, as
> > > well as the actions of all creatures that don't use morality in their
> > > internal processes that choose actions.
> > >
> > > I could be convinced otherwise but it would take some actual explanation of
> > > why things that don't have a moral system (like rocks) aren't therefore
> > > amoral (the definition, after all, says "without moral sensibility") rather
> > > than just sniping and then saying "you didn't get my point".
> > >
> > > Saying that rocks are amoral does not, in my view, strike me as an
> > > anthropomorphic claim, either. It just says "morals don't have meaning to
> > > rocks" without any claim about whether that is a human centric thing or not.
> > >
> > > ++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
