Guest guest Posted March 20, 2002 Report Share Posted March 20, 2002 Very important point to contrast the thinking Peter Singer and Tom Regan.Also, perhaps, to see how each would respond to the critiques of ethical vegetarianism made by their opponents.Maynard S. Clark mavreela <nec.lists wrote: [1] Rights not being used in the technical sense as utilitarians do not believe in rights. Contrast Singer and Regan., "Simon pJones" <simonpjones@o...> wrote:> Point seems to have been missed,satan and such names are names for evil which is another name for serious wrong-doing, which every one excepts exists, wrong-doing (evil), is not a matter of opinion,wrong -doing is wrong-doing regardless of belief or opinion surely. for instants killing a animal for fun is wrong and surely anyone that said different,their opinion surely can not be respect under the circumstances!> Sp~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2002 Report Share Posted March 20, 2002 , " Maynard S. Clark " <MaynardClark@Y...> wrote: > > Very important point to contrast the thinking Peter Singer and Tom Regan. > Also, perhaps, to see how each would respond to the critiques of ethical vegetarianism made by their opponents. > > Maynard S. Clark > mavreela <nec.lists@m...> wrote: [1] Rights not being used in the technical sense as utilitarians > do not believe in rights. Contrast Singer and Regan. > > > , " Simon pJones " <simonpjones@o...> > wrote: > > Point seems to have been missed,satan and such names are > names for evil which is another name for serious wrong-doing, > which every one excepts exists, wrong-doing (evil), is not a > matter of opinion,wrong -doing is wrong-doing regardless of > belief or opinion surely. for instants killing a animal for fun is > wrong and surely anyone that said different,their opinion surely > can not be respect under the circumstances! > > Sp < Not familiar with Peter Singer & Tom Regan points of view regarding rights % wrongs; I do know people need to get to the core of what is right and what is wrong,The only real guide-line I can go by is,anything that gives life and enhances non-destructive life- forms can be considered right (good) and anything that harms non- destructive life forms can be considered wrong (bad).If some ones opinion go's contrary to non-detructive life forms being enhanced,should their opinion respected;I would respect their right to an opinion, but not the opinion itself! SP, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2002 Report Share Posted March 20, 2002 , " vegicate1 " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > , " Maynard S. Clark " <MaynardClark@Y...> wrote: > > > > Very important point to contrast the thinking Peter Singer and Tom > Regan. > > Also, perhaps, to see how each would respond to the critiques of > ethical vegetarianism made by their opponents. > > > > Maynard S. Clark > > mavreela <nec.lists@m...> wrote: [1] Rights not being used in the > technical sense as utilitarians > > do not believe in rights. Contrast Singer and Regan. > > > > > > , " Simon pJones " <simonpjones@o...> > > wrote: > > > Point seems to have been missed,satan and such names are > > names for evil which is another name for serious wrong-doing, > > which every one excepts exists, wrong-doing (evil), is not a > > matter of opinion,wrong -doing is wrong-doing regardless of > > belief or opinion surely. for instants killing a animal for fun is > > wrong and surely anyone that said different,their opinion surely > > can not be respect under the circumstances! > > > Sp > > < Not familiar with Peter Singer & Tom Regan points of view > regarding rights % wrongs; I do know people need to get to the core > of what is right and what is wrong, The only real guide-line I can go by is, anything that gives life and enhances non-destructive life- > forms can be considered right (good) and anything that harms non- > destructive life forms can be considered wrong (bad).If some ones > opinion go's contrary to non-detructive life forms being > enhanced, should their opinion be respected;I would respect their right to an opinion, but not the opinion itself! > SP, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.