Originally posted by Palynka... and that information should be scientific...
What do you mean by "built on science"? It is built on whatever information we have at the moment, but ultimately science is silent about morality.
I didnt mean to suggest that science offers an answer to moral questions only that we should base our arguments on sound scientific facts.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yes, of course that science improves our information was implicit in my comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear. As for the rest, I guess we agree then.
... and that information should be scientific...
I didnt mean to suggest that science offers an answer to moral questions only that we should base our arguments on sound scientific facts.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou were talking about rights, and now you say you don't think ethics should be founded on rights. This is inconsistent.
It's not a natural consequence at all. Why should ethics be founded on a theory of rights? I prefer an ethics founded on virtue. It's simply ignoble to go around molesting people.
What are "people"? You seem to have the same dilemma as rights theorists.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOK. Internationally applicable then.
You give the perception that you so believe.
Clearly its not considered universally applicable. The rule of law doesn't even pertain in China, for example.
I give the impression that I so believe (despite having long ago told you I was really a utilitarianist), because that's the moral code the international legal system and my nation have agreed upon. Therefore it's a natural way in the present system to move from morality to law.
By the way, what's "virtue"? Does virtue exist if we don't grant it?
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59You said scientists said dolphins should be granted rights. I corrected you and you continued to say it. Thus, you lied. It was a small part of your attempt to simply wish me away.
Just noticed that I have been accussed of LYING. Must say I'm a bit miffed with that - I do talk rubbish sometimes but I have never lied. Why would I?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI already did! Bosse, you really should read what people write before jumping in so aggressively and self righteously. I also long long ago said that human rights are a subjective concept, but you totally ignored me. Please stop lashing out at me when you haven't been following the topic being discussed!
Fantastic. Let's pursue this avenue of thought. You go first 🙂
Bosse, wolf, peer pressure is not going to work on me. If you don't like what I have to say you'll have to address my points instead of ignoring them. That, or go to PMs.
Though I suppose eventually I might get bored.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe opening post to this thread is a cut n paste quote from Sonhouse's original thread (you know; the one you sabotaged) it is not me saying that.
You said scientists said dolphins should be granted rights. I corrected you and you continued to say it. Thus, you lied. It was a small part of your attempt to simply wish me away.
However as I neglected to put quotation marks around it I can see how someone with limited intelligence and/or limited memory might get confused.
However I have not "continued to say it" as you say. That makes you the LIAR 😛
and now I have better things to do than argue with you .. like scratch my arse
Originally posted by wolfgang59i giggled for ages at this last phrase, although i shouldn't have, but what can i say, it was standup funny! 🙂
The opening post to this thread is a cut n paste quote from Sonhouse's original thread (you know; the one you sabotaged) it is not me saying that.
However as I neglected to put quotation marks around it I can see how someone with limited intelligence and/or limited memory might get confused.
However I have not "continued to say it" as you say. That ...[text shortened]... the LIAR 😛
and now I have better things to do than argue with you .. like scratch my arse
Originally posted by wolfgang59Excellent, my ally, your arse, has distracted you from the thread! I win!
The opening post to this thread is a cut n paste quote from Sonhouse's original thread (you know; the one you sabotaged) it is not me saying that.
However as I neglected to put quotation marks around it I can see how someone with limited intelligence and/or limited memory might get confused.
However I have not "continued to say it" as you say. That ...[text shortened]... the LIAR 😛
and now I have better things to do than argue with you .. like scratch my arse
(_l_)
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFor Bosse.
The snail has a far less developed nervous system, so is less capable of suffering. The brain is the most advanced organ of the nervous system, and leads to sentience and intelligence. Therefore, we can correlate the morality of what we kill and eat to the level of development of their nervous system.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI said:
For Bosse.
Perhaps instead of fixating on terms like 'nature', 'right' and 'grant', we could talk about whether certain legal protections enjoyed by human beings should be extended to dolphins. Would that work better?
I don't see how your statement about snails and a putative neurological morality addresses this issue of whether legal protections ought to be extended to dolphins; but perhaps you could make the connection clearer.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOK. I assumed it was implied.
I said:
Perhaps instead of fixating on terms like 'nature', 'right' and 'grant', we could talk about whether certain legal protections enjoyed by human beings should be extended to dolphins. Would that work better?
I don't see how your statement about snails and a putative neurological morality addresses this issue of whether legal protections ought to be extended to dolphins; but perhaps you could make the connection clearer.
If the dolphin's neurological development is as complex as ours leading to similar levels of intelligence, we should extend those legal protections to dolphins.
Sorry for the confusion.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy should intelligence be the criterion for legal protection? Is it somehow less immoral to strike a stupid person than a smart one? Is it less immoral to inflict pain on a creature with equivalent sensitivity but lower mental capacity than a human being?
OK. I assumed it was implied.
If the dolphin's neurological development is as complex as ours leading to similar levels of intelligence, we should extend those legal protections to dolphins.
Sorry for the confusion.
Setting that aside: What about animals with intelligence equivalent to small children? Should they not receive the same protections as small children?