Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:59:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1404 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 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?
> > > > [snip]
> > > > 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.
>
> So. You admit you were wrong to disagree with Larry about his assessment of
> your position as being that the Lion was amoral?
no. Calling it amoral compares it to us does it not?
>
> > > So the reason it's "more ok" to judge family/friends is because your moral
> > > codes are likely to be very similar?
> >
> > i think "judge" is rather strong a word.
>
> Do you think "judge" is incorrect?
no.
> Please suggest a better word. What is it
> that family/friends may do with respect to us morally that strangers
> "should" not?
>
> > > Hence, you're agreeing with me that
> > > *IF* you *COULD* judge someone by *THEIR* *OWN* moral code, you'd be correct
> > > to do so?
> >
> > If they wanted you to - yes.
>
> ?!
>
> You seem to disagree with yourself. Maybe I'm wrong.
>
> You killed someone. By your own moral judgements, your act was immoral.
If you mean murder, by anyone's moral code this is wrong. I expect even
murders know it to be wrong.
> 1) I judge by my own moral code and find your action to be immoral. You'd
> say that's potentially conceited and/or an incorrect decision, yes?
>
> 2) I judge by my own moral code and find your action to be moral. Again, I'm
> either conceited and/or incorrect?
>
> 3) By some magical means, I am able to *perfectly* understand and apply your
> moral code. I do so, and (obviously) find your action to be immoral. You
> didn't want me to, so I'm conceited and/or incorrect to do so? Huh?
>
> What difference does it make whether you wanted me to or not? Suppose I have
> no knowledge of whether you wanted me to or not-- what then?
>
> > > You failed to answer the question. The question is what is the CONSEQUENCE
> > > of judging others based on your own morality?
> >
> > The consequence is that it annoys them.
>
> Excellent! So if I wish to avoid annoying them, I shouldn't judge others by
> my own moral code. If I don't CARE about annoying them, I can go right ahead
> and judge morally.
What is your point?
>
> > > Are you morally wrong to do
> > > so? Are you conceited? Are you incorrect? Or so you simply have the
> > > potential to be incorrect? Or the potential to be conceited and/or wrong?
> > > What happens if I judge you according to my own morality? For what reasons
> > > should I not do it? What's my motivation for not doing so?
> >
> > Why do you neet motivation for *not* doing somthing?
>
> What's to stop you from taking something you like in a store? What's to stop
> you from being naked in public? Why don't you kill people you don't like?
> Why don't you sell drugs to kids? Why don't you adulterate? Don't you have a
> motivation for NOT doing these things? Even if your motivation for not doing
> it is the police coming and stopping you themselves, THAT'S a motivation--
> I.E. you don't WANT them to, so you don't.
Yes, but I do not have to stop myself - I am not tempted.
> If you DIDN'T have that negative
> motivation, you'd go right ahead and do it, the police would stop you, and
> you'd go RIGHT ahead and do it again, because you wouldn't care. The fact
> that you DON'T want them to is a negative motivator. And in order to prevent
> me from judging you, you have to provide me with a reason-- something I
> presumably don't want to happen.
>
> > > > > #1: What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
> > > > > societal morality?
> > > >
> > > > A great deal.
> > >
> > > Really? I don't think there's any *necessary* difference whatsoever,
> > > excepting that it's emergence is from multiple individual moral codes.
> >
> > There is not necessary a difference, but I expect there will be one.
>
> I specifically and intentionally included the word "necessary" in the
> original question. I shall take the above as an admission that you were
> incorrect to say "a great deal"?
It is possible, but highly improbable that there will be no difference.
>
> I take the above to more directly mean "There is no *necessary* difference
> between a social morality and a personal one, however in practice personal
> moralities differ greatly (and in similar manners) to a social one, not
> presupposing that there are or may be exceptions to the norm."
>
> > > The
> > > end product of a social morality (I hold) has the potential to be as correct
> > > or flawed as an individual morality. Besides, you again didn't answer the
> > > question. I asked "what" not "how many".
> >
> > Do you want a list?
>
> Yes. And apparently, since above you think there ARE no *necessary*
> differences (other than the origin, which isn't really the subject of the
> debate, and which I already mentioned), I would assume that your list would
> consist of nothing?
You'd be incorrect.
>
> > > > It sounds like you are now agreeing with my criticism of Larry?
> > >
> > > Which criticism is that? You have so many :)
> >
> > Perhaps the one which started this?
>
> Thanks for the specification. I can only assume that you mean your criticism
> wherein you accused Larry of passing judgement on others, and that by doing
> so he was conceited? Yes-- Kind of. He's only conceited if he believes that
> he is not wrong and does not concede the possibility that his moral
> judgement may be flawed.
But if he is willing to say "pass judgement", rather than (say) "discuss
with them" does that not imply that, by your system, that he is conceited?
>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > We *may* be conceited for doing so?
> >
> > It is a term of phrase - I am agreeing with you.
>
> I wasn't *disagreeing* with *you*, *nor* was I attacking your position.
> You're reading far too much into my questions. In fact, that's the reason I
> decided to persue you on this topic-- by quickly reading in Larry's position
> as one that was attacking you, I believe you responded quickly without
> careful consideration. When people feel they're under attack, they often
> respond vehemently, and without regard. If I say:
>
> "So you think we're all conceited?"
>
> Don't assume that I'm putting down your viewpoint, attempting to slander it
> in any way, nor trying to misshape it. I'm asking an honest question. If I
> decide to attack your position, I'll actually state why and how I disagree.
>
> I'll ask again. You say "We may well be concieted [for passing judgement on
> societies]", which is different that what you originally said, which was
> that it *is* conceited (which I take to mean "always" in such a theoretical
> debate, when stating something so flatly) to pass such a judgement.
>
> Hence, you're either *clarifying* your previous position(to mean exactly
> what I'm saying?), OR you're saying something different. ARE we necessarily
> conceited for passing judgement on society? If not, what factors contribute
> to conceit? What is it that makes someone conceited for making such a
> judgement, and what is it that makes someone NOT conceited for making that
> same judgement?
We may be viewed as being conceited for passing judgement on another
culture. But if, say, it is to protect lives- that it is worth being called
conceited. There is a world of difference between that and passing judgement
on an individual for having, say, no dietary constraint or being gay.
Scott A
>
> DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
