Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:05:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1353 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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 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.
> >
> > Yes, I have asked it already, and yes, you've tried to answer it-- however,
> > I either did not understand your response, or I find you to be in error for
> > ever disagreeing with Larry about the issue. So, either please clarify by
> > answering the above (don't just copy/paste-- I've phrased the above
> > differently so as to potentially understand your response better) or admit
> > that you were too quick to discount Larry's assessment of your own position.
>
> I think we should not compare our morals with the lion’s decision making
> process.
That is *exactly* what we are doing when we say the lion is amoral. We are
saying that our morals do not apply to it. That's where the breakdown in
communication is happening. You appear to be operating with a different
definition of "amoral" than everyone else in this debate.
FWIW, my understanding of amoral is in line with most people here:
amoral=has nothing to do with morality. Neither moral nor immoral.
Dictionary.com: "Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither
moral nor immoral."
Meriam-Webster.com: "being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying
outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply"
Oxford Pocket: (7th ed) "Beyond morality; having no moral principles"
But that doesn't change the fact that you got caught in a direct
contradiction and refuse to admit it. You agreed when Chris said that
animals are amoral, and disgreed when Larry said that animals are amoral.
(from: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11313 )
Chris:
> > Neither the lion nor the wildebeest is concerned with
> > morality. It is an action completely without moral regard. It is
> > therefore amoral. But not immoral.
Scott:
> I agree.
Chris: Animals are amoral.
Scott: Yes.
Larry:
> > Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral.
Scott:
> No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth.
Larry: Animals are amoral.
Scott: No.
James
(perpetuating folly, just like the next guy...)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
