We decide, judge, adjudicate, comment and pronounce our verdict about so many things, quite unawares of the fact that if it happens to ‘sail-through’ too often, such recklessness becomes our very attitude and way of being! We even try to decide how much fees a preceptor is eligible to ‘draw’ out of us(especially, even when we have a choice to precipitate away from preceptors)!
Regards,
Psn(25th Nov, 2009)
(quote:)
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiwWjn2sIlVcZKUR5yBb6_CQHQx.;_ylv=3?qid=20091123224416AAt2oUs
The question:
Are zoos unethical or not?
An answer to it:
If you feel that animals have property rights, then they have rights over their bodies and are ethically tied to the non aggression principle . Personally I don't feel that animals have a sense of property rights. I'm asserting that without evidence. I hope that's good enough for you.
A counter to this answer:
Blappers... is it ethical/moral to make assumptions that grant liberal permissions when you know there is no proof supporting the position?I would argue that "you have no rights because you havent proved you have rights" is an immoral perspective to hold, and validates notions such as slavery and womanizing on the grounds that the other person hasnt proven their sovereignty yet.If you want to discuss morality and pretend that you have any, you have to take a conservative position on the matter and assume (even if falsely) that animals do have sovereignty... until proven otherwise. (Not the other way around)Should I obligate you to prove your own sovereignty before I grant you freedom and rights? And then lock you up in a cage so that you cant under the presumption that you havent got any? It doesnt make sense to presuppose the conclusion in any argument, much less a conclusion that infringes on your rights and consequently hinders your ability to mount a counter-argument. Makes no sense, at least from a moralistic perspective.This is a common fallacy in western thought. We abort fetuses on the potentially false assumption that they are not alive... that perspective grants peoples liberal permissions to act as they see fit. Instead of the opposite perspective: to infringe on a woman's rights to self-dictate for a few months of her life in order to protect the life of a fetus, under the potentially false assumption that it is indeed alive. The moral uncertainty exists... so which is therefore the greater immorality? Why use the ignorance of a moral resolution as a tool to justify self-serving agendas? Moral culpability is not relinquished when you abuse your own ignorance, no matter how moral the act in and of itself may be.
The asker’s comments, having chosen this “counter” as the best answer:
The man sure knows where he stands. Hehehehe...
Anyone gotta' problem with that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment