Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:45:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1452 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 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.
I am saying I do not care about the lions morals. Saying a lion has no
morals, is like saying it cannot drive a car - it is irrelevant. I view
calling a lion “amoral” as negative, as it is saying it has not got what we
view as being “good”. This is my view - not a universal fact.
>
> > 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.
You are welcome to judge me, I'm pretty think skinned :)
>
> 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.
You are correct. I was listening to the moral maze last night (its a UK
thing :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/genre/genre_religion_original.shtml#moral)
and some of the issues which came up as part of the debate (on drugs) made
me re-think what I had said to you over the last week or so (don't ask me
what now). The problem is that you are thinking about this more than I am, I
am just giving quick answers to your well thought questions.
>
> > 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.
Perhaps I am that bad then!
>
> > > > 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.
There is always the court of appeal.
> 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.
Ah, but (the crime aside) you are not changing your outlook (as the judge)
in that context, only your view - ie your own morals are not challenged
> 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.
Ok change it to:
Fringe issues, like killing cute animals for horns, hoofs and the like.
Scott A
> 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 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
|
|
|
|
