To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 11505
11504  |  11506
Subject: 
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:09:08 GMT
Viewed: 
3856 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Totally not following this. If something is unable, it clearly lacks. In
> what way is amoral an insufficient category to contain rocks, amoeba, grass
> and sheep (positing sheep are not self aware)?

I do not think that "lack" is strong enough to suggest that. But, even if it
is I still think it is negative.

> 
> > I still agree with Larry's distictions between being moral, immoral and
> > amoral. 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?
> 
> If there is he hasn't given it. I would like to hear it (stated positively,
> that is, not in terms of what it is not), so tests could be applied to see
> if it really does add another equivalence class to the partition.
> 
> I reiterate, I see there being only 3 partitions here, and if one answers
> "is it A, B, or C" with "none" the onus is on that person to say what sort
> of thing it is, then.

I have.

Scott A

> 
> (arguably I'd even lump moral and immoral together for the purposes of
> partitioning and go down to two classes. There are things that morality is
> relevant to, and things that it isn't. There are no other possibilities)
> 
> ++Lar



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
 
(...) Totally not following this. If something is unable, it clearly lacks. In what way is amoral an insufficient category to contain rocks, amoeba, grass and sheep (positing sheep are not self aware)? (...) If there is he hasn't given it. I would (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR