From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:58:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.044818.24294@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>In <1993Jan5.220804.26280@clpd.kodak.com>, Bob Black writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.010816.26470@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com 
>writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.193924.21805@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com 
>(Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

> >>>I don't know when the linkage dissolves.  It currently is beyond the
> >>>scope of my ability to determine.  But that doesn't matter.  We can see
> >>>many obvious cases where it does not dissolve.  And there's enough
> >>>debate about those cases to last us all for a while. 
> >>
> >>      How conveniently fuzzy.  Of course, it DOES allow us to kill roaches
> >>      with abandon while rushing to the defense of mice.
> >
> >Many of us would undoubtedly prefer that the world confront us with more
> >black-and-white situations instead of fuzzy ones.  In any event, the
> >occurrence of fuzziness is not a matter of "convenience" but an inherent
> >feature of the world in which we find ourselves.
> 
>         [NOTE: the "you" in the following paragraphs is generic.]
> 
>         Perhaps, but it's not necessary, or even desirable, in this area.

It appears unavoidable to me, given the current state of our knowledge.

>         The fuzziness of thought so often in evidence by the claimants of
>         the ethically vegetarian high ground is troubling.  How do you know
>         what's an ethically acceptable meal if you can't even describe the
>         process by which you assign ethical value to non-human species?  You
>         engage in the ludicrously struthious practice of limiting your 
>         ethical guessing game to the extreme ends of the scale of evolu-
>         tionary complexity while leaving the huge majority of species with
>         which we share the planet in a kind of ethical limbo ...

That seems like an odd way to put it.  More accurately, we deal with the
easier, more obvious cases first and work from there.  It's not unlike
the common approach of partitioning a large complex problem into more
manageable sized pieces.  We're still working our way through the myriad
individual pieces.  This is actually the antithesis of the far more
common struthious adbication of responsibility.

>	  and claiming
>         not only that you are "right," but that those who disagree are
>         "wrong" on some nebulous "absolute" scale of your own creation.

The intent is to apply, where relevant and to the extent possible, the
criterion that humans have demonstated they wish to have applied to
themselves. 

> 
>         You claim that these choices are not arbitrary, yet you supply us
>         with no evidence to dispute that claim, retreating, instead, to the
>         safety of your own opinions, which, by definition, are most
>         definitely arbitrary.  You claim that humans are no "better" than
>         any other animal, yet you presume, as a human, to determine which
>         non-human species are ethically relevant and which are not...and
>         not only for yourself, but even for those around you who choose
>         to disagree.

This sounds like a stawman.

> 
> [...]
> 
> >>>So it's my impression that you wish to restrict your participation to
> >>>the domain of scientific data and prefer not to take a position on any
> >>>ethical implications of that data?  You are content to discuss the
> >>>obvious truth that people DO eat dead plants and animals without further
> >>>inquiry?
> >>
> >>      That WAS my intent when I posted the original excerpt from the
> >>      study.  If you want to discuss the ethics of vegetarianism vs.
> >>      omnivory, then first tell me this: what are the ethics surrounding
> >>      my consumption of garden slugs, beetles, and amoebae?
> >
> >Since the extent to which these three lifeforms can be
> >subjects-of-a-life with a capacity to experience suffering and
> >deprivation is less than many other lifeforms, ....
> 
>         "Less than?!?"  I'm about to EAT this thing and all you can tell
>         me is "less than?!"
> 
>         What I want to know is where does "less than" become "not at all" so
>         I can eat lunch and remain ethically correct!
> 
> >.... then it makes sense to
> >conclude that they merit lesser ethical consideration ....
> 
>         "Lesser ethical consideration?!?"  I'm about to EAT this thing and
>         all you can tell me is "lesser ethical consideration?!"
> 
>         What I want to know is where does "lesser ethical consideration"
>         become "no ethical consideration" so I can eat lunch and remain
>         ethically correct!
> 
> >.... and are therefore more suitable objects of prandial undertakings.
> 
>         "More suitable?!?"  I'm about to EAT this thing and all you can
>         tell me is "more suitable?!"
> 
>         What I want to know is where does "more suitable" become "suitable"
>         so I can eat lunch and remain ethically correct!
> 
> >So eat hearty and feel
> >at peace to continue unabated your consumption of them. 
> 
>         Not bloody likely with such a total lack of information.

Re: waffling and lack of information.  We probably never will have
*enough* information.  We work with what's available.  Isn't the
alternative to simply throw up our collective arms in surrender and
let indecision drive us into total inaction?  If we never make a
decision or take a position until we have ALL the relevant information,
then we'll never do anything at all.  You could starve while awaiting
the complete answer, yet the partial answer is available to keep 
you (generic) going while we (collective) chip away at the entire
solution.

> 
> >Now my turn to inquire about three lifeforms:  What are the ethics
> >surrounding consumption of other humans, of monkeys, and of domestic
> >cats?
> 
>         I suppose you really expect me to answer this, even after the
>         waffle you served up.
> 
>         Cannibalism on a large scale is maladaptive behavior for any
>         species.  

Only depending on the extent and way it's practiced.  Cannibalism could
strengthen the species by weeding out weaker individuals while at the
same time providing sustenance for the stronger ones.  The effect could
be somewhat like that claimed on behalf of hunters for hunting/predation
activities directed toward other species.  Cannibalism properly
practiced could strengthen the species and thus be very adaptive.  (No
I'm advocating this as policy.)

Also why are you introducing maladaptive behavior into a discussion
of ethics?  Is it the case that species adaptivity is to be the
ethical test for behavior?  Is adaptive behavior ethical and maladaptive
behavior unethical?

>	  Most human societies consider it unethical, but notably,
>         the Anasazi apparently did not, nor did the Aztecs...of course
>         both of these societies are now extinct, but I'm sure it has
>         nothing to do with the practice of cannibalism.

I agree that the Aztec demise did not result from cannibalism.  There
were these Spaniards who appeared on the shores and ... well that's
straying too far.

> 
>         Monkeys and cats are up for grabs...unless, of course, you're
>         limiting your discussion to the Western society in which we live.

If a group of entrepreneurs publicized its intention to establish a new 
venture in your community that would raise monkeys and cats for human
consumption, what would your reaction be?

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