Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:48:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1365 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> 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.
Have you read my respnse to Dave on this?
>
> (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 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
|
|
|
|
