Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:21:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1170 times
|
| |
|
|
> > >
> > > (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)
> >
> > I can go with that. Moral and immoral both imply that the relevant thing has
> > morals, accepted morals or morals which go against custom. Either way, it's
> > still a moral. Whether it's moral or immoral is a matter of perception.
> > Amoral on the other hand means that the relevant object has no morals
> > what-so-ever.
>
> Interestingly, my thesaurus give these replacements for “amoral”.
>
> Unprincipled
> Unethical
> Dishonourable
> Unscrupulous
> *Immoral*
>
> Scott A
>
>
Funny, my dictionary here at work (The American Heritage 3rd edition) gives
this definition: Neither moral nor immoral
Try dictionary.com and see what you come up with. (or should I do the
legwork for you?)
Tell you what, I'll mail you my dictionary if you'll mail me your thesaurus
and we can compare. Then we can debate what the "true" definition of "is" is
while we're at it. When we've figured that out, we can send our results to
Bill Clinton.
-Duane
I think my can of "Troll-be-Gone" just went empty.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
