OK, gotcha. As long as you acknowledge the idea that a "moral" system
requires "immorality" then I agree.
Steven
To say that "I will not be free till all
humans (or sentient creatures) are free" is
simply to cave in to a kind of nirvana-
stupor, to abdicate our humanity, to define
ourselves as losers.
Hakim Bey
The Temporary Autonomous Zone, 1985
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adam Gottschalk
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 4:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethics and the species question
on 10/15/00 09:36, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Bissell here: moral vs. _amoral_ is a logical impossibility. There is only
> "amoral" or "moral/immoral." Amoral precludes anything being moral *or*
> immoral.
I think you missed my idea Steven. I was aiming to use your own semantic
approach just to say to me the question of whether animals can act immorally
is moot. If we acknowledge that some sort of ethics is at work, of course we
acknowledge the potential for immorality according to such an ethical
system.
My concern is the question of whether or not there is any ethical system at
work at all in non-human animals. (Again, I venture into the tricky
territory that such a system may well be physically determined, rather than
handed down from a rabbi or priest.) If there is not, that is where the term
"amoral" came to my mind. My phrase "moral vs. amoral" is perhaps better
phrased: animals do know right from wrong and have some form of ethical
system at work in their lives and communities (moral) vs. animals have no
ethical system whatsoever (amoral).
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|