Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:08:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1066 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
>
> 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.
Uh, no, by the definitions you gave (and my understanding also) amoral does
not specifically relate to _our_ (human) morals, but _any_ morals.
> 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"
ROSCO (Never let it be said that *I* let this thread die!)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
