From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Long-range hunting. Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:14:44 GMT

>In article <1992Jul28.172145.21753@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul22.142929.6621@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:

[...]

>jr> 
>> b) people who've not participated in hunting and have no 
>>>first hand knowledge of it, imagine incorrectly that being killed by a 
>>>bullet or an arrow would be painful; c) as seems to be demonstrated below, 
>>>some people feel that animals and humans are equally entitled to life, 
>>>liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>> 
>rb>
>> You forgot d) some people have recognized that in order to claim rights
>> for humans, any rationale invoked, to be logical and consistent,
>> necessarily includes some rights for animals. 
>
>But this in no way should preclude us from using them as food!

What relevant differences between humans and nonhumans justify using one
but not the other for food?

>
>Besides, I think (d) is poppycock. :-)
>

Why?  What is poppycock?  ... that some people have recognized this?  ... or
the conclusion that consistency and logic demand that we recognize some animal 
rights?

>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But when you take the life of a conscious, thinking, feeling, living
>>>> being which has moral rights and which may coexist in a complex social
>>>> structure with others having rights, then you are committing a
>>>> morally-significant action, whether you choose to realize it or not. 
>>>> And if you choose not to realize it, then it falls to others to speak
>>>> for the voiceless ones. 
>>>
>>>This is another serious problem I have with the AR cause.  I would have 
>>>much less difficulty with the above paragraph if you were trying to disuade 
>>>me from hunting human beings.  It seems here that you are putting humans 
>>>and other animals on the same level so to speak.  This is a concept whose 
>>>validity I question.
>> 
>> No, it's not putting them "on the same level so to speak."  Rather it's a
>> case of recognizing that where there are ethically relevant similarities
>> between human and nonhuman animals, then if the interests of humans are
>> factored into ethical considerations so also must those of animals be
>> factored into ethical considerations and in a consistent manner.
>
>But this is silly.  What the hell is an 'ethically relevant similarity'?  

This has been covered in many posts by many individuals.  I'm saying
that there are ethically relevant characteristics possessed by both
humans and nonhumans.  If you find the words confusing, why not attempt
to reword it in a way that more clearly explains what you think I'm
saying? ... and then I'll adjust it if necessary using your phraseology.

Presumably you agree that humans have some rights and therefore that the
human part of that statement is correct.  Rather than having me waste
more time guessing what you specifically believe are ethically relevant
characteristics possessed by humans, why don't you name those
characteristics for humans, and then we'll evaluate them and examine the
case for animals?

>And what exactly do you mean by 'factored into ethical considerations'?

I mean that in order to act in an ethically consistent manner, if we
wish to treat animals differently from humans, we must be able to
indicate a relevant difference.

>  We 
>are all guided by our own conscious and you can not effectively impose your 
>concious, your morals and your ethics on someone else.  It just doesn't 
>work.

You missed the point.  You ARE effectively imposing your conscience,
your morals and your ethics on the animals that you kill and eat.  Or are
they voluntarily submitting? :-)

>  Prohibition and the totally unsuccessful War on Drugs are just two 
>prime examples of that.

Irrelevant.  You're talking about "victimless" crimes, in which the
drinkers and drug users are acting directly on themselves.  I'm talking
about your appropriation of the life and body of other conscious,
thinking, feeling beings.

>>>> 
>>>> Additionally, if you were in the US, you would be killing something
>>>> that at least partially "belongs to" others, since the Supreme
>>>> Court has ruled a long time ago that wildlife is a national treasure
>>>> belonging to everyone.  (I don't know if this is true in Canada.)
>>>
>>>Yes I know.  That's part of the reason one must pay a fee.  One must give 
>>>back some of what one takes.  If it belonged only to me I could go out and 
>>>kill it any time I decided to.  But I really don't see what this has to do 
>>>with anything.  Wildlife may well be a national treasure, but unlike 
>>>treasure it is not fixed and static.  It is a dynamic thing.  Hunters have 
>>>been instrumental in nurturing and promoting the growth of that national 
>>>treasure and they've been so successfull that it is necessary to trim it 
>>>down to make sure it doesn't overflow its chest, so to speak.
>> 
>> Seems like an odd way to define successful.
>
>It would be if we were dealing with something like gold coins, which are 
>static.  Life is dynamic and must be handled that way or disaster will 
>result.

Huh?  What's your definition of success here.  Is it to "overflow the
chest" so hunters will have more deer to shoot?  Or is it to keep the
populations under control at stable levels supportable by the available
habitat?  Doesn't a huge surplus suggest either a management failure or
an implementation failure, rather than a success as you've claimed?

>>>> 
>>>>>  As much as I would 
>>>>>like to correct this misunderstanding on your part, I don't think I can.  You 
>>>>>see, I almost suspect its a deliberate misunderstanding, and as such, not 
>>>>>correctible.
>>>> 
>>>> First, don't give up so easily.  Secondly, would it clarify these
>>>> discussions if we divided "hunting" up into its two components: (1)
>>>> animal-killing, and (2) everything else?  You can select a word for 
>>>> the second component.  Then maybe it will be more clear which aspect
>>>> of hunting is relevant at a particular point in any discussion.
>>>
>>>It would except for one thing.  The two are inextricably linked. See above.
>> 
>> And how does that prevent us from having different words or phrases for these
>> two components?
>
>But we already do.  Hunting is the whole activity.  Killing is the taking 
>of a life.  I really don't see what is so complicated about this.  The fact 
>that they're linked in no way prevents us from having separate words for 
>them, nor did I suggest that it would.  

You've missed the point here.  Am I that unclear?  We've agreed that
hunting is the whole and it consists of two components:  killing and
something else.  What is a word you would choose for the "something
else", so that when we're referring to that aspect of hunting, as opposed
to the killing aspect, the confusion of the past can be avoided.

In other words:  Killing + XXXX = Hunting.  What does "XXXX" stand
for?

---
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