Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:17:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1505 times
|
| |
|
|
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 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?
> >
> > 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.
Again, I'm tremendously unclear. Please try and explain in more than 2
sentences. Try and summarize in a couple ways-- that might help. As near as
I can tell, you mean one of two things:
1. You mean to say that we cannot tell if animals have moral codes or not.
Perhaps they regard things within a moral framework, and perhaps they don't.
And maybe they turn their moral sense off and on for different events. But
we have no way of knowing. To say that they have *NO* moral sense implies
that they are "heartless" so to speak-- hence, a negative view of them. So
instead, you would prefer not to call them amoral, because you associate the
inability to "evaluate" morally with negativity.
2. You mean to say that animals do not posess the capacity to valuate
morality. They can't comprehend morality at all ("amoral" by my
definitions), and thus are without a moral framework to judge events on a
moral basis. However, if you're saying this, I'm not sure I understand what
you're calling negative.
Anyway, if you're saying #1, you should never have agreed with Chris, and if
you're saying #2, you should never have disagreed with Larry (on this issue
alone, of course). Which do you mean? Or do you mean something different?
*IF* you mean something different, please explain why the above 2
possibilities are NOT what you are saying. Explain the differences between
my impression and what you're actually saying. And then attempt to clarify
your position. If and only if you're not saying either #1 or #2 above.
> Amoral is negative.
Negative with respect to what? Certainly the ability to evaluate moral
issues *IS* something which I regard as a positive ability, just like sight.
But I certainly wouldn't object to someone saying an amoeba can't see,
simply because it's negative. Hence, I must conclude that you think it's an
immoral valuation? It's not. Saying something is immoral means it exists
within a moral framework, and is biased negatively. Saying something is
amoral means it has no scale against which to judge.
> > 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?
I don't really care. My point is that by your logic, I would be perfectly
willing to judge you by my own moral standing. If the only thing that
happens when I judge you morally is that you're annoyed with me, I can live
with that. After all, if you're immoral, I might even WANT you to be annoyed.
However, by *my* logic, you can be *incorrect* to judge by your own moral
code (assuming you're judging "absoloutely"). And I won't judge people if
I'm going to be incorrect-- there would be no point for me. It instills a
lack of desire to judge morally that annoying people does not.
> > > 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?
The difference is in the illogical extreme. What counts is that you *were*
or *can be* tempted, and that the negative consequence is that which forced
you into the position of not being tempted. Hence saying you are not tempted
means nothing unless you mean to say you never were. The point I was making
was that the negative consequence is necessary.
> 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).
They were not. In fact, you contradicted yourself in the same post in two
consecutive reply sections. That's why I said you lose. You were clearly
responding without consideration.
> Despite that, I do think that difference is necessary in a developed society
> so that debate can flourish.
So that debate can flourish? Yes. I simply didn't see the point in your
initially bringing up societal morality for use in judgement as being
potentially non-conceited, since I could find no *necessary* differences
between tht two.
> Now now Dave, even I am not that bad.
Sorry-- it's just that you appeared to understand exactly what I was asking,
and gave me a completely valid response, and then promptly forgot what I was
asking, and gave a completely inadequate and also contradictory response.
> > > 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
Yep. But you'll notice that deciding once is not necessarily deciding
forever. Just because I may judge someone to be immoral now does not mean I
will decide later that they were immoral. I mean, let's say you killed
someone. I hold you to be immoral. But then I find out you did it in
self-defense. Now I don't hold you to be immoral. Despite the fact that I
passed judgement on you, it wasn't final. Now if I *said* it was final, then
I'd be wrong and conceited. If Larry does the same, then he is likewise. And
he does a little of both, honestly.
> > 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.
I'd have to go back and find it. He basically said he didn't like the idea
of me being able to be moral and still being able to kill him. He wanted to
think that morality was a little more universal than what I put forth.
> 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?
We never really concluded, as far as I'm concerned. But I've seen Larry
waiver a couple times in his stance-- and he also respected the fact that I
was entitled to my opinion. So yes, he was conceited to some degree insofar
as he agreed with himself, but then again, so was I. I don't really think it
was enough to justify being called "conceited"-- I think that's a little
strong, though accurate in nature.
> > 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.
No, I'm not asking for a society's opinion. I'm asking for YOUR opinion
ABOUT its opinion. When are you conceited to think that society is wrong?
Are you saying that only the societal opinion's subject matter is core to
whether or not you're conceited to judge its opinion morally?
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
|
|
|
|
