From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy.  Was Re: The right-to-kill...
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:02:43 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <+fsxakd@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:

[...]

rb:
>>My standard is proposing that you only do those actions whose projected 
>>equivalent impact you yourself would be the willing recipient of.  If
>>the cannibal would himself not want to be eaten (or be subjected to some
>>equivalent effect) and understands what he's doing and has an choice,
>>then he is wrong.  Period.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.
>
jsve:
>I would not ever want to be killed in a war, yet I would shoot the
>enemy with the intent to kill.  So I will simply never fit your
>standard, nor can I therefore advocate it.

Good point.  I have never opposed the exercise of self-defense, as I've
mentioned in earlier posts but not this one, since I believed it can be
taken for granted (though I've heard that there are extreme Augustinians
who would differ).

So granting this important exception: that self-defense permits us to do
to others what we would not wish on ourselves, do you have any other
objections to my standard?  Can you appreciate that I'm making a sincere
effort to define a non-arbitrary standard?  Can you point out other
areas where you believe my standard is still deficient? 


rb:
>>So many posters to this newsgroup have tried to duck this basic truth. 
>>So many posters have take a position something like this: "I don't
>>BELIEVE X is wrong, therefore it's not wrong FOR ME".  Bullcrap.  This
>>type of sinister "logic" can be used to justify all sorts of atrocious
>>behavior.  You can't just look at the conduct in question and decide if
>>that conduct is okay with you.  That is where the true arbitrariness
>>lies.  You must try to project the results of that conduct and determine
>>whether you would want to be the recipient, not necessarily of that
>>conduct itself but, of some conduct which would have an equivalent
>>impact on you. 
>
jsve:
>At risk of being rude, do you mind if I ask whether or not you swat
>misquitos that bite you?  It's an honest question, just to find out
>whether your "do unto others" philosophy applies to all creatures or
>just the ones the AR side calls "sentient."

Yes.  I tend to swat anything that bites me, especially mosquitoes. 
First, it's almost a reflex.  Secondly mosquitoes are a threat to humans
...  the incidences of eastern equine encephalitis are on the rise. 
Thirdly, as carriers of heartworm, they are a direct threat to our dogs. 
Fourth, they are invertebrates lacking a central nervous system and the
evidence is weak to nonexistent that they fit Regan's "subject-of-a-life"
criterion for possessing rights.

[...]

jsve:> if 
>>>the deer is eaten and if the herd (vs.  the individual) is strengthened 
>>>by killing the deer.  Now I've said that I don't do any "sport" 
>>>hunting, but admit that I feel it is OK for others to do so (so I 
>>>condone their actions).  Such "sport" hunting is admittedly an 
>>>arbitrary taking of the deer's life.  However, I find it difficult for 
>>>me to argue the case, since I don't personally do so.  (Yeah, that's 
>>>indeed a cop-out.  Let me think about it a little more.  :-) 
>>
rb:>>Please do, and let me know what you come up with.
>
jsve:>I've scratched my head quite a while on this one, and I'm not sure I
>can find anything to justify it.  But let's make sure we agree on the
>term "sport" hunting.  My definition is any time an animal is killed
>and not used at all (except maybe for the picture taking), not simply
>the case of someone shooting a trophy animal, if the meat, hide, etc.
>is used later.

My definition of sport hunting is a little different and is independent
of whether or not the killed animal is used for anything.  Sport hunting
is hunting which is done PRIMARILY OR SOLELY FOR RECREATION OR FUN.  The
use of the animal for food does not rule out the possibility that sport
hunting was at work.  By introducing this "use" criteria, hunters seem
to be trying to define sport hunting out of existence, or at least
limiting the applicability of the term.  But actually it's the
motivation, not the end result, which establishes whether or not the
hunting is of the sport type. 

[...]

rb:
>>Two final points:
>>
>>1.  Your standard calls for special consideration for all members of a
>>genetic class on the grounds that this class is "superior" in some way. 
>>My standard calls for special consideration for all those beings,
>>independent of genetic class, to whom the consideration is important and
>>relevant.  Do you really think that both standards are equally
>>arbitrary?
>
jsve>Yes, although now that you've clarified some points, I can see how
>*you* might think that it is less arbitrary, from your perspective.  I
>hope that didn't come out wrong, I'm not saying you aren't right to
>feel that way.  Just that it looks quite different from the two sides
>of the fence.
>
rb:
>>2.  Your views grant that animals have a right to not be subjected to
>>cruelty without good reason, but that they do not have a right to live. 
>>Does this really make sense? Isn't the right to life a prerequisite for
>>the right to humane treatment?
>
jsve>You're kind of putting some words in my mouth here.  While I don't
>feel they have the exclusive "right to life" that you AR folk think
>they do, clearly they have a right to not be killed for no good
>reason.  I don't recall ever saying that they should.  In fact, I
>recall myself being pretty pro-environment and doing quite a bit to
>save animals and their habitat. :-)  Of course, we disagree on what
>good reasons are.  I think food for humans or experiments for humans
>are both very good reasons.  That is the only place we disagree.  I'm
>sure most hunters feel the same way, although there will always be a
>few out there with t-shirts sporting that infamous Arnie-phrase from
>the movie _Predator_, "If it bleeds, we can kill it." :-(

In some ways, we're so close, ... and yet so far ...  However I do
respect your position, which in certain ways is more reasonable than
that of many on your "side of the fence."

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals