From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:23:38 GMT

In <C1Dvw0.4oI@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>From article <1993Jan24.070801.4442@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>In article <C1Buo8.Jnz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> Let's not confuse truths and opinions.  It's perfectly reasonable
>>> to determine opinions by conducting opinion polls.  To determine
>>> whether the opinions are truthful, however, we'd have to examine
>>> the underlying facts and reasons.
>>
>>But we're not looking for Truth, we're looking for ethical accep-
>>tability...a point you seem to want to avoid.  All that's necessary
>>for this is the opinion poll.
>
>Actually, we're trying to evaluate actions in terms of their 
>"goodness" or "badness", and we're trying to determine whether or 
>not our evaluations ought to be based on facts and reasons or 
>mere beliefs (accepted at face value).  

	Maybe that's YOU'RE goal.  What I'M trying to point out is that,
	regardless of your conclusions, what is "ethically acceptable"
	is a matter of opinion and consensus.  "Factually Correct" and
	"Ethically Acceptable" often have little to do with each other.

	To use one of your favorite examples: slavery was undeniably
	"ethically correct" for the majority of plantation owners in
	the 18th and 19th centuries, but the premise on which it was
	based, that Africans were less intelligent, was clearly in 
	error.

>>> The difference between you and I, Rich, is that you accept ethical
>>> ideas at face-value whereas I insist on probing them and testing
>>> them to determine their degree of soundness.
>>
>>No, Russell, the difference between us lies in the fact that I
>>understand that there is often a difference between what I feel 
>>and what is acceptable to the society in which I live. 
>
>I understand that there are always some differences between the
>feelings and thoughts of any feeling/thinking entity and 
>similar feelings and thoughts of other entities around him.
>This doesn't prevent me from trying to understand whether or not
>my ideas are accurate representations of the world around me.
>You seem to think that your ideas are truthful, simply because 
>they're shared by other individuals.

	First, they're not just "my ideas."  Second, I've never said that
	ideas are truthful just because everyone agrees that they are.  In
	fact, I categorically reject such a premise.  "Everyone" agreed
	that Newton's laws adequately described linear motion under all
	circumstances, but "everyone" was clearly in error.

	Your problem is that you insist upon equating "Truth" with 
	"Ethically Acceptable," and they are not the same thing at all.

>>Your persistent efforts are, perhaps, commendable to some, but the
>>fact remains that, in our society, killing animals for food is
>>ethically acceptable, however emotionally disturbing you might
>>find the practice.
>
>It doesn't emotionally disturb me in the least.  I do, however,
>think that it reflects a practice that will someday be regarded
>as incredibly careless and stupid.

	Perhaps.  The fact remains that, today, such practices are
	considered ethically acceptable by the society in which we
	live.  Your claim that you remain emotionally unmoved by
	these practices is categorically refuted by your past postings.
	Your avowed "concern" (remember that word?) for the welfare
	of research animals is but one example.

>>It is you who apparently cannot separate logic from emotion.
>
>I'm a grown man, Rich.  And I've been around the block, so to
>speak, more times than I care to think about.  Please don't make 
>assumptions about my emotions.

	I have made no assumptions; you've demonstrated my point quite
	adequately on your own.  It is quite clear that you consider
	anything which tends to cause you to feel "concerned" to be,
	ipso facto, unethical.  Perhaps you need a few MORE trips around
	the proverbial block, so that you can separate feeling from 
	thought.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)