From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Let them eat grass!
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:08:11 GMT

From article <1993Jan12.144431.26262@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> My point is that such determinations ARE arbitrary.  Also, I
> should mention that the phrase "social structure" is used, rather
> loosely, I'm afraid, to include humanity, not just Western
> European society.  Somalis, therefore are of the same species 
> and are accorded the same considerations as other humans.  It
> should be noted that this is not inconsistent with the practices
> of non-human species: each species treats "its own" preferentially.
> The drawing of the "circle" you mention is, in final analysis,
> totally arbitrary, which is why the standard vegetarian attempt
> to classify this species as edible and that species as not, based
> on some arcane ethical definition, are matters of personal choice,
> not universal principles which must be followed by all under pain
> of punishment.  I think we are essentially in agreement, based on
> your paragraph.

It's hardly "arbitrary", as you claim, to consider the sentience and
sapience of other individuals when we're attempting to evaluate
the "goodness" or "badness" of a particular act.   As I've pointed
out many times, it's surely not arbitrary to consider the importance
of pain if you were to make a distinction between hitting a nail
with a hammer and hitting a dog's foot.

> As for "drawing a circle," my personal feeling is that we should
> avoid such fruitless exercises and treat ALL life with equal respect.

Would you treat a young healthy child the same way that you might
treat a brain-dead comatose human?  [no]  Would you be willing to
provide some financial support for the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Plants?  [probably not]   If not, then it's clear that
you have no intention of treating ALL life with equal respect.

> This avoids the fuzziness of ethical classifications based on little
> but emotion and personal opinion while recognizing that, as part
> of Nature, we deserve no more castigation for the methods we employ
> in our search for survival than any other creature.  

Our knowledge of the mental abilities of other beings depends on
scientific investigations, rather than emotion.   

The fact that no field of knowledge will ever be perfect is an 
impediment that all thinkers must accept, even folks who seem to 
believe that they can surmount "fuzziness" by re-asserting their 
black & white perception of the world.  

> ...
> Indeed, and when vegetarianism is codified, then I will be forced
> to obey the code.  Until this happens, however, there is no universal
> ethical imperative which allows anyone to judge my non-vegetarian
> eating habits "wrong." ... 

Yes, Rich.  Many of us realize that there are no "universal 
imperatives" commanding [whatever].  For example, I've seen no 
evidence to demonstrate that there's a "universal imperative" 
that would bar me from beating you to a pulp.  However, the lack 
of such "universal imperatives" doesn't prevent me from 
evaluating the "good" and "bad" outcomes of such an action, and 
acting accordingly.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals