From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:05:34 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you think it might 
rl> be perfectly ok for you to kill a billion individuals that you've 
rl> classed together in a group, but a great moral offense against 
rl> the "species" if you were to kill the last living pair belonging 
rl> to that particular group.  

From article <1992Jul22.154107.10717@nmsu.edu>, by pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer):
jp> Because we recognize that diversity, in and of itself, is a good
jp> thing.  

Good for whom?  Are you saying that diversity is good for 
humans alone?  Or, are you claiming that diversity is good 
for all animals?   Please explain.

jp> Consequently:
jp> -- killing animals belonging to overpopulated species is morally good,
jp> as it improves conditions for the remainder.

This reminds me of the old argument that war and disease are "Good 
Things" (TM) because they pave the way for newcomers.   And why did 
the moron beat his head against the wall?   Because it felt so good
when he stopped.  

On the whole, you seem to be ignoring the harm that might be 
caused to individual victims and their social groups, while 
pretending to promote the collective good.  

If non-human animals are so mindless that their deaths mean 
nothing with respect to pain, grief, loss of companionship, etc, 
then how could the survivors benefit in any meaningful way by 
improved living conditions?  

jp> -- killing animals belonging to a species which is neither over- nor
jp> underpopupated is, in and of itself, neutral.  

Are animals capable of experiencing any sort of enjoyment in 
life?  Are they capable of joining in social relationships with 
other animals?  Are they capable of experiencing pleasure, pain, 
grief, etc?  If so, is it possible that we could be depriving 
them in some way by killing them to satisfy our own pleasures?  If it 
is, indeed, possible to deprive a non-human animal in some way, 
what evidence can you present to show that killing it is 
ethically neutral, as you say?  

jp> Other circumstances must be accounted for to say whether the act 
jp> is morally good or bad;  is the animal used appropriately?  

What would give any human the right to determine what constitutes
"appropriate use"?

Does it make any difference to a dead deer whether its flesh is consumed
or left on the ground?  To quote Clint Eastwood, "Buzzards have to eat,
same as worms".  

Would you please explain why it's better for the "ecosystem" for humans 
to cart off the carcas to some concrete city, rather than leaving it behind
for the benefit of animals that live in nature?

jp> ...
jp> -- killing animals belonging to a species which is underpopulated is
jp> morally bad.  The species must be allowed to repopulate.

Why?  And, for whose benefit?  

jp> -- killing the last pair of a species is worse, as it prevents that
jp> species ever repopulating.
jp> 
jp> You're right that a ``species'' is merely a human convenience, and
jp> there is no good definition of what constitutes a species.  So we find
jp> the ``endangered northern spotted owl,'' when nobody can adequately
jp> explain how it differs significantly from the ``southern spotted
jp> owl,'' which is not endangered (never mind that spotted owl nests have
jp> been sighted in second growth forests...).  Down here, a lawsuit was
jp> filed to try to block construction of an observatory, based on a
jp> population of squirrels living on top of the hill.  The suit failed
jp> when it wasn't possible to distinguish them from the squirrels at the
jp> bottom of the hill.  We do need to have a better mechanism for
jp> distinguishing species from one another...
jp> 
jp> Hope this clears things up,

You seem to be suggesting that the value of squirrels and spotted
owls is totally dependent on their rarity.  Will your life be half
as valuable to you and your family when the population of humans
doubles in the years ahead?   Would your life be twice as valuable
to you and your family if the population were cut in half?

If you're unable to appreciate owls and squirrels as individuals, it
seems to me that you're a poor friend of either one.

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