From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Fantasy vs. Ethics.  Was: Closure on sport hunting
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:31:21 GMT

In article <Bt0L0z.DDL@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> As I've pointed out repeatedly, I have no need to prove that an action
>rl> is "absolutely" wrong.  To the contrary, all I need to prove is that
>rl> the class of actions have consequences that cause more harm than good.
>rl>
>rl> Incidently, you've made it clear that you don't respect the
>rl> concept of animal rights, but you've been rather secretive in
>rl> addressing my allegation that you don't have much respect for
>rl> human rights either, but instead pay consistent hommage to
>rl> "god's rights", as interpreted by Mike Linan.  If you have the
>rl> courage to do so, please address the question that I've posed
>rl> several times previously:
>rl>
>rl> If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and
>rl> children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey
>rl> command?  Or, would you disobey?  Would you agree with me that
>rl> my body is the property of my mind?  Or would you be inclined to
>rl> believe that my body is the property of some "god"?
>
>From article <1992Aug14.194459.22311@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@m
agnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>jh> Ooops, I deleted the question.
>
>No problem.  I've edited the question back in. :-)
>
>jh> At any rate, it is clear that
>jh> Mike Linan does not respect your concept of animal rights.  It's
>jh> interesting in the paragraph above how quickly your concept of
>jh> animal rights quickly becomes "THE concept of animal rights,"
>jh> your "absolute."
>
>Not entirely.  I don't believe that rights are etched in stone, nor
>do I believe that sets of rights ought to be constant from one
>individual to the next.  Given the vast range of different
>abilities in different organisms, it wouldn't make sense to say
>that a retarded human ought to have the right to attend Harvard,
>nor would it make sense to argue that a cancer-ridden puppy with
>untreatable chronic pain should be permitted to decide whether or not
>to opt for euthanasia.  Such "rights" would be meaningless under the
>specific circumstances that I've described.
>
>On the other hand, it's logically inconsistent to say that it
>might be wrong to torture a chimp, but perfectly ok to torture a
>gorilla, given the fact that both animals consider pain to be
>equally disagreeable.
>
>While I don't consider myself to be an absolutist, I'm not an
>ethical relativist either.  In particular, the notion that all
>ethical belief systems carry equal weight seems ludicrous to me.
>Relativist moral philosophies seem to prevail only among social
>scientists who think that criticism is "off-limits", so to speak,
>and that beliefs ought to be accepted at face-value without
>regard for the underlying facts and arguments.   On the whole,
>such philosophies had their heyday in the 20's, when it was widely
>(mis)believed that ethical diversity was something of a norm.
>
>jh> He has a concept of animal rights that he has
>jh> articulated on numerous occasions;  including a belief in his
>jh> obligation to the animal for a quick kill;  a belief that in
>jh> killing deer he limits the suffering of a non-controled herd;
>jh> his statement that the meat he kills and consumes is better for
>jh> his health than that which he would buy at the grocery store;  a
>jh> belief that being in nature focuses for him his awareness and
>jh> concern for the natural environment;  a belief that killing
>jh> animals for food is not wrong and as a group of actions does not
>jh> constitute a greater harm than good.  I guess I understand him to
>jh> be making these points, demons and goblins aside...You or I may
>jh> not like certain elements of his belief structure, however, to
>jh> feign a lack of understanding of it seem disingenuous to me.
>
>The concepts that you've listed here could, indeed, be considered
>a philosophy of sorts, but most of the points would hardly
>qualify as a philosophy of animal (personal) rights.  To the
>contrary, most of them represent a philosophy of property rights.
>You may disagree, but it seems to me that personal rights and
>property rights are often antithetical in popular practice.
>
>The business about demons and spirits isn't tangential, as some
>readers may be inclined to believe.  You and I would probably
>agree that the mind of Jim Hoskins owns the body of Jim Hoskins.
>I would go a step further and declare that the mind of a deer
>owns the body of that same deer.

I see it as tangential to the extent that you use Mike Linan's belief
system as a universal representation of the ethical underpining of an
action--hunting--that you disagree with.  Mike Linan may use God to
philosophically base his right to hunt deer; it doesn't follow that some, all,
or most other hunters do.  However, as Mike goes out into the woods to go
hunting his ethical foundation becomes secondary to the behavior of hunting.
He joins the many who view hunting as OK, for whatever reason.  I think that
for most, hunting is just a behavior; considerations such as you
raise are not generally taken into account, not to say that they aren't
important.  People should think about why they do this or do not do
that.  For this reason I respect the task you take on by your participation
in this forum.

Your arguments at their best cause one to really think.  And I suspect that if
the Mike Linan ghouls and demons tact serves your purpose you'll use it.  I
tend to view this as your counting angels on the head of a pin tendency.
Why do people kill and eat animals; from where is this right derived?  Culture
and tradition, would you agree, are the primary determinants of the ethical
acceptability (or even appropriatness) of meat eating in our society?  You
would like to overturn the configuration of our society, through argument.
It's a task I would certainly not be up to.  Good luck!


>
>Perhaps I'm mistaken, but Mike's given me reason to believe that
>"god" is the real owner and master of Jim Hoskins' mind and body.
>In effect, this notion would treat Hoskins as property, and thereby
>diminish respect for his personhood to a substantial degree.
>No doubt, Hoskins would continue to have many rights in Mike's mind,
>but ultimately, he's always going to be a vassal servant of
>the "Lord".
>
>It seems to me that this feudal view of the relationship between god
>and man filters down, so to speak, into fundamentalist views of
>the relationship between man and animals.  Mike acknowledges, for
>instance, that animals have some rights, but the notion that
>animals might own their own bodies would seem completely radical
>to a man who considers himself to be the property of the god(s).
>
>There exists a secular version of this same theory, BTW, which
>substitutes men with technical or physical prowess in place of
>gods and goddesses.  According to these theorists, it's ok for
>men to hunt animals... since animals are "lower" in the cosmic
>power struggle; it's wrong for humans to hunt humans... since
>humans have more or less equal rank;  but it'd be ok for
>super-intelligent aliens to hunt humans if they occupy a higher
>niche in the cosmic order.  The consistent theme in all three
>cases is that the rightness or wrongness of an act is measured by
>the power of the perpetrator rather than the effect that the
>action might have on all parties, especially the victims.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ