Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:26:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1481 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:
> > > > I think we should not compare our morals with the lions 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?
>
> Not by my watch.
Well I still think it is. I view moralising as rather sanctimonious. To say
an animal is without them is negative - in my opinion.
> If you were unclear on the issue you probably should've
> asked Larry what he meant by amoral. Otherwise, you must explain what
> definition you though Larry was using, explain why it's not what you're
> saying, AND explain the definition you WERE using by agreeing on thier
> amorality.
>
> Hence, since you've defined your position as stating that the lion's action
> could not be fit into a moral framework, explain how being amoral differs
> from that.
Amoral is negative.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Alright, so it's *correct* but it *sounds* harsh? Any words sound better?
Evaluate comes to mind
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> The point is, you told me that I (Larry specifically) "shouldn't" judge
> others-- I wanted to know why, so that I can decide (using your logic)
> whether or not I still may *want* to do so, and decide that the consequence
> is acceptable.
Read Larry's message again. Assess the tone. What do you think his outlook is?
>
> Your response is apparently that if I'm willing to pay the price of annoying
> people, it's absoloutely fine for me to judge others. I would argue
> differently. I would say the consequence is that you can very easily be
> wrong. Hence, if you can accept the price of being potentially wrong, it's
> fine for you to judge others. Hence, we're arguing the same point, for
> different reasons, I think.
>
> > Yes, but I do not have to stop myself - I am not tempted.
>
> I flat don't believe you. You almost positively and absoloutely cannot
> convince me otherwise. I am nearly 100% thoroughly convinced that it is your
> moral sense which has developed a learned reaction not to be tempted, not
> that you are never tempted.
What is the difference. My statement would still be true?
> And if that temptation ever grows stronger, your
> moral sense will try to keep it in check by reinforcing negative
> consequence. I don't really see a point in arguing this though-- Quite
> clearly arguing your personal subconscious desires is not easily subject to
> my (nor your!) observative abilities.
>
> > > 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"?
I shall have to back track a bit here. I think I lost you here:
=+=
> > > > Individual morals, I expect, flow mainly from our parents and/or religion. I
> > > > do not think that individual morality is necessarily conceited, but I can
> > > > see how it could be argued that it is.
> > >
> > > So. What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
> > > societal morality? Is your (you Scott's) morality not a product of the
> > > society in which you were brought up?
> >
> > Not really. Within my liftime many past "sins" have become the norm.
>
> #1: What is the necessary difference between individual morality and
> societal morality?
A great deal.
=+=
I did not pick up on your "necessary". I have been arguing that there is a
difference - not that there *a* necessary difference. If you read all my
replies you will see that I am consistent in this (I have not checked - but
they will be). Your posts are too long, I need to spend more time on them. :)
Despite that, I do think that difference is necessary in a developed society
so that debate can flourish.
> >
> > It is possible, but highly improbable that there will be no difference.
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> You just lost. You JUST stated above (in the same post, even) that it is
> *possible* to have cases wherein there are no differences. Hence, because
> *necessary* differences MUST be included in EVERY comparison between social
> and individual moral codes, your list of *necessary* differences is
> therefore nothing.
>
> I suppose your other option is to say that you were wrong to say it were
> possible to have no differences in the first place.
>
> Anyway, assuming I'm wrong, I'm still waiting for even a partial list, let
> alone a complete one-- unless of course your list *was* nothing (as I
> assumed but you told me was incorrect), in which case, you actually DID
> answer my question nice and completely, by giving a 100% complete list of
> absoloutely nothing.
Now now Dave, even I am not that bad.
> But then you shouldn't have said I was incorrect to
> assume so-- unless you have some sort of proof that my assumption was incorrect?
>
> > > 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?
>
> Not necessarily. "Passing judgement" does not necessarily mean "final
> answer".
judge (DECIDE) verb
to form, give or have as an opinion, or to decide about (something or
someone), esp. after thinking carefully
> And that's not to say that I don't think Larry's not conceited.
> Clearly he has views on morality that I'm convinced are absoloutely wrong,
> as evidenced in previous debates (really just one) that we had on relative
> morality. And assuming that he holds to that, he has the potential to be
> conceited, and I would even believe it to be so. But that does not mean that
> *I* am decided on the issue, solely because I'm unsure that *he's* decided
> on the issue.
I'm not which debate you mean. But if he left with his stance intact, but
still had respect you your argument that is not the same as just testing
your morals against his. Is it?
>
> And likewise, according to my system, if he says "Your act was immoral",
> without further qualifying any possibility otherwise, he is (as judged by
> me) 99% wrong, and 100% conceited. But if he said "Your act was immoral by
> my personal judgement" (and nothing more), he is 0% wrong, and, oh, say, 75%
> conceited, merely because by specifying his own moral code, he allows the
> possibility of OTHER moral codes. If he insists that his code *is* the *one*
> "true" code, then he's back to being 100% conceited.
This is what I am saying above.
>
> And likewise, if he's willing to admit that he may be wrong, but that he
> still thinks you're immoral (by any standard), then he's a lot less conceited.
>
> > > 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-
>
> How does passing moral judgement protect lives?
If a culture changes in so way - it can. Is that not what the "west" is
trying with China on Human Rights?
> > that it is worth being called conceited.
>
> Did you mean to say "not conceited" above? If not, then please clarify when
> someone is NOT conceited. See below questions.
No I meant "then 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.
>
> Individuals aren't the issue at this point. I wasn't asking about that.
>
> 1) When (example) is it conceited to place a moral judgement on a society's
> morals?
Fringe issues, like killing cute animals for food or horns.
> 1A) Why is it conceited to do so in this instance?
Because, they may have been doing it for 1000's of years, and they may
consider the animals we eat as being cute etc.
>
> 2) When (example) is it NOT conceited to judge a society's morals?
> 2B) Why is it NOT conceited to do so in this instance?
Issues, like killing rare animals for food or horns. If we are willing to
help manage the problem in some way to help them find alternative which are
sustainable.
Scott A
>
> Feel free to replace "society" with "individual" in these questions,
> HOWEVER, make sure that they match up if you do. If you give an example of
> passing judgement on an individual in 1), do the same for 2) & visa versa.
>
> DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|