Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:25:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1071 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > ? So you were able to agree that the lion's view is amoral, but at the same
> > > time you think that such a statement should not be made? Are you saying "If
> > > I had to guess, I'd say it was amoral, but I don't think I should be forced
> > > to guess, as the guessing of such forces a moral,immoral, or amoral state
> > > upon the lion, none of which may be in order"?
> >
> > That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that it "can not be viewed
> > within a moral framework". If we take amoral as meaning this:
> > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=amoral*1+0
>
> So, you think that the lion's morality cannot be judged as it does not exist
> within any moral framework? Or do you mean to say that we simply don't know
> if that framework exists or not? If the former, I think your disagreement
> with Larry is potentially flawed. If the latter, then your agreement with
> Chris's initial statement is off.
You have asked this already. I have answered it already.
>
> > > > > So morality is only useful insofar as how we judge ourselves? It would be
> > > > > conceited, rude, and incorrect to assume me being immoral for torturing a
> > > > > baby?
> > > >
> > > > You are taking an argument to its illogical extreme.
> > >
> > > Excellent. As I've advocated many times, taking something to the extreme is
> > > the only way to test its validity. If it doesn't hold at the extremes, it
> > > doesn't hold.
> >
> > Taking it to its logical extreme is - illogical extreme is not (in my
> > opinion).
>
> Really... I've always found the opposite. Obviously the logical (read
> realistic) extremes are more important because they have a higher
> probability of existing, but I don't think that devaluates the illogical
> (read nearly impossible) extremes to the point of valueless-- especially
> when it comes to philisophic issues.
>
> > > Living up to *my* standards? No. However, the question is, of what use is
> > > the ability to judge morally? By your account, it would seem that the only
> > > "correct" application of moral judgement is on one's own self. Is that a
> > > fair assessment of your position?
> >
> > Why should it not be? Most of us judge ourself far herder than anyone else
> > does. But if I were in the wrong, I would expect friends and family to
> > question me in some way - but not strangers.
>
> So judging people is "more ok" when judging those you know well? I.E. family
> and friends vs. strangers? Against what moral standard should they be judged?
I think we tend to group socially with those who have morals which match our
own.
> > > If so, what place is it of yours to tell me to keep my moral judgements to
> > > myself? Is it not "wrong" of you (incorrect, not immoral-- unless you *mean*
> > > immoral) to place such a judgement?
> >
> > I am not say you should keep you moral judgements to yourself, I am saying
> > you should not judge others based on your own morals.
>
> I should not judge others based on my own morals? Why not?
Your own values are your own. We are all individuals.
> What are the
> consequences of my judgement of others? By saying that I "should not" you
> insinuate that by your judgement, something bad will result-- I just want to
> clarify what that "bad" is. If you're implying being morally "bad", then
> you've just gone against what you've stated. If you're implying "wrong",
> then that's fine with me-- it's what I think. If you want to judge people by
> your own moral code, go right ahead. You'll just be incorrect to a certain
> extent.
>
> > > > Individual morals, I expect, flow mainly from our parents and/or religion. I
> > > > do not think that individual morality is necessarily conceited, but I can
> > > > see how it could be argued that it is.
> > >
> > > So. What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
> > > societal morality? Is your (you Scott's) morality not a product of the
> > > society in which you were brought up?
> >
> > Not really. Within my liftime many past "sins" have become the norm.
>
> #1: What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
> societal morality?
A great deal.
> #2: Is your own morality a product (in full or in part) of societal morality?
Yes
>
> You say no to number 2? Or yes? I admit I phrased that badly-- Sounded like
> you meant no? If not, how do you think your moral code developed?
>
> > > I'll merely attempt to make a further clarification, since it's what I
> > > believe: do you intend to say that moralizing is *conceited* or *incorrect*?
> > > Does moralizing *necessarily* imply conceit?
> >
> > I think it does. Vegetarianism is a bad example, but many other moral issues
> > are just based of pejudice or gut feeling.
>
> I don't think so. For instance, I can moralize on you and say something you
> did is immoral. However, because of my particular beliefs, my assessment is
> based on my perception of your own moral code. And as such, I allow myself
> to be wrong, hence "cancelling out" conceit as far as I'm concerned.
> Basically, the more you're willing to admit you're wrong, the less conceited
> you are. If I *insist* that you're immoral, that's conceited. If I *think*
> you're immoral, I'm not conceited. Or perhaps merely not *so* conceited.
It sounds like you are now agreeing with my criticism of Larry?
> > > > > > > Can we pass judgement on society?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not? Some societies are clearly questionable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't passing judgement on soceity conceited and wrong of us?
> > > >
> > > > That depends, I think we have to respect cultural morals as much as we can.
> > >
> > > Wait a sec-- so it depends? On what? What will/will not allow me to pass
> > > judgement on a society? From what you say above, it would sound like you
> > > should have said that such would be moralizing and hence at least conceited,
> > > if not my implied "incorrect".
> >
> > There are many great cultures around us. Many have morals which do not match
> > our own - but I say "live and let live". But when these cultures use
> > "morals" to persecute individuals - I feel that is wrong.
>
> So we *can* pass judgement on societies, but we're conceited for doing so,
> just like when passing judegement on others, yes?
We may well be conceited. I am sure those who we dictate feel we are.
Scott A
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
