Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:56:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1600 times
|
| |
|
|
<37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net> <FHzyB1.3zB@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John DiRienzo wrote:
> Animals live by instinct (which is a perfect moral code - we agree! ;-).
> Instinct is the only knowledge animals have, they can not gain more
> knowledge (other than "to know" their surroundings) and they can not act in
> a fashion that is not in accordance with their knowledge.
I'm not trying to take this out of context, but do you really mean this?
If not, what do you mean? If so, I guess you've never encountered a
non-human animal, have you? Most of the critters that people think of
as animals do learn. Exactly like people learn, just not as much. The
smartest (verbally, anyway) of the 14 or so cats that I've had in my
life clearly knew 22 distinct words. I believe that she was not born
with instinctual knowledge of those words.
> Their instinct is
> all they have to survive - if that knowledge is insufficient, they don't.
Just like people, other animals have instinct and wit. They are both
used to survive.
> People can act irrationally - they can go against their better judgment -
> people don't live by instinct - people can have very flawed morals. My
> point, is that animals can not act immorally, while people can.
I do tend to agree with this. The animals that I have known well enough
to have an opinion on were not cognitively complex enough to have a
sense of morality. I have never worked with bonobos, porpoises, or pigs though.
> Survival
> (and anything else) is a choice for people.
I disagree. We are hardwired to respond to certain stimuli in certain
ways and we can't choose not to.
> > > agreement. "I won't take your things, but you can't take mine." This • limits the
> > > child from taking/destroying/whatever other people's property (a slight • loss);
> > > but prevents others from doing the same to his/her property (a bigger • gain, I
> > > would argue).
> >
> > I think the Libertarians are fixated here, and think this is their ultimate
> goal.
>
> I am not a Libertarian, so I am not at liberty to answer that.
> Personally, though, I think its very important.
I'm not really sure What JohnN means. Property rights as and issue is
certainly central to the Libertarian philosophy. And I agree that it is
very important.
--Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
277 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
|
|
|
|
