Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:31:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> I didn't really mean either of your definitions. I think every creature
> has the same morality - to survive by whatever means necessary, but we
> humans have found that we don't like living by that morality, because its
> full of pain. So we need to devise our own moral system (one of its goals
> is to eliminate pain from living, make life happy). So we live by different
> morals than animals because we can. Animals aren't exempt from morality,
> but they can't violate their morality, and can't comprehend ours, although
> some can abide by it. An animal living in the wild by his morals (of
> course) is good. An amimal living among humans is good (as in the wild, he
> has no choice - he must follow the morals or not survive). One that comes
> among humans and doesn't abide by our morals doesn't survive, unless it has
> the body of a man, because our current pervasive, flawed moral system allows
> it. From your definitions, I would be more aligned with #1, although it
> doesn't convey exactly what the above does.
Ok, so basically the main difference is in the exemption of animals from
morality that I suggested. You're saying they have their own morality, still
ultimate, but a different ultimate morality than our own? Ok. I guess one of
the points that might have been confusing me is the idea of a single
ultimate morality, then. Sounds like you're saying that adherence to
survival is a seperate ultimate morality (for animals)? My thought had been
that you held only 1 'ultimate' morality, and the only place it applied was
in humans. Otherwise, I guess I just didn't see survival as a moral code...
But ok, that's fine, I can accept that... Otherwise, the human moral system is
ultimate among humans in our society, and humans are inseperable in their
human-ness among other humans; I.E., all hunans adherence to the 'ultimate'
morality should be equal, so long as they are part of our society.
Any better?
> As usual, I disagree. There is nothing wrong about killing animals. I
> don't think we need to add to the mess of making life better for human
> beings by bringing animals into it. They aren't men, they aren't going to
> understand or adhere to men's morals. They aren't a part of it. You are
> fortunate, though, that a lot of men feel the same way, and since all land
> is owned by someone, the owners could say these animals are my property
> (like the US govt does in parks) and make it illegal to interfere with their
> animals.
Hmm... again, the charity issue... you seem to hold charity as being outside
the realm of morality, and more in the idea of 'being nice'. I think I'd say
that your concept of morality includes more straight justice rather than
charity. Anyway, I'd still recommend that you might want to read Nietzsche and
Mill... both rather interesting, even if you don't agree with 'em...
> > Do we shake hands now and say "good debate"? :)
>
> Well, maybe we should.
"good debate", then?
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
