The study on rats came from a publication called PLoS Biology, and is summarized on the Web on ArsTechnica. It shows that rats will pull levers in order to deliver treats to other rats, even though the other rats are not related to them. It seems we have underestimated our rodent friends.
On Jul 2, 5:08 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Frantherman,remember nobody argues abortion is moral because murder is > moral. They argue it is moral because it is /not/ murder. Same for > capital punishment -- nobody argues capital punishment is moral > because murder is moral; they argue it is moral because it is /not/ > murder. Clearly the first step in reasoned debate is to come to terms: > what is murder? That itself illustrates these moral disagreements > really do take place against a background of universal agreement. The > dispute is over application of a general precept (don't murder; don't > steal; don't lie, and so forth) to particular cases (is abortion > murder? capital punishment?) . Were it not the case, there could be > no /debate/ about the morality of this or that act. > > On Jul 1, 9:19 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 1 Jul., 17:28, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > So this debate takes place against a> universal background of agreement: > > don't murder. > > > Ah but, Alan, "murder" itself is a complex term which needs to be > > defined. And not all definitions are the same. Even if we take a > > fairly, old, generally accepted legal definition - "when a person, of > > sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable > > creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice > > aforethought, either express or implied." (Blackstone, Commentary on > > the Laws of England [1765-69]) - questions arise. Particularly with > > regard to the qualification "unlawfully". What if the law is unjust, > > allowing for all sorts of legal killing, what we might term "judicial > > murder"? Whatever one's view of abortion may be, for example, the fact > > that it is legally allowed in a society automatically means, according > > to Blackstone's definition, that it cannot be defined as murder. > > > Let us take the example of the position taken by many in the USA who > > campaign against abortion, on the grounds that it is murder, while at > > the same time condoning capital punishment. Both are legally > > permissible. So in this case, in order to define murder, one must move > > beyond legal definitions. But here it becomes difficult. Can one say > > that all killing is wrong? Or does one define a particular subset of > > killing? If not the legal ones, than what criterea does one use? > > > I realise that your scholastically grounded position defines moral > > precepts on the basis of derivation from general principles. But there > > are many of us who do not share your philosphical position. (Apart > > from the question as to the stage at which a fertilised embryo can be > > considered to be a human being - and no, I don't want to discuss that > > here at the moment ... Chris would just accuse me of throwing hand- > > grenades!) > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
