From: andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:09:06 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.


	This is fairly long, but it does have a Dr. Who quote in it.


In article <viking.717315081@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer) writes:
>
>>><...>
>>>your perceptions?  That inflicting less pain is good is a perception,
>>>you know, and yet one of the foundations of most ethical codes.
>
>	Was this last point unanswered?

    No, if you'll recall, I noted that my definition was not a perception,
    it was a definition.
>
>>     "Ethics" can be used to refer to multiple systems of conduct. It can
>>     also be used to refer to the compatibility of a behavior with a single
>>     system. I am using it to refer to the latter. In common usage, 
>>     "ethical" means behavior which satisfies some level
>>     of concern for others. 
>
>	Yes, but that concern is created and enforced by not only personal
>but societal norms. ...

	Perhaps, perhaps not. Many societal norms directly oppose concern
	for others.  

>...  Handing money to beggars and handing money to the ...
>Hare Chrishna's in the airport are entirely different in social standing,
>yet both are the same act, and once I die I may find that the Hare
>Chrishna's are indeed the enlightened ones.  How, then, do we know that
>the eating of animals in wrong when the bible states mankind was given
>dominion over animals and indeed used them as burnt offerings in an ethical
>manner yet you say doing so is unethical?  I say that hunting is an ethical
>act, yet in the years 2525 it may be seen as unethical.  These sorts of
>societal influences, which may be best referred to based upon time, are
>the sorts of things I find inconsistent with the AR argument of some act
>being unethical and immoral.  In 1941, killing Japanese or Germans was
>a moral act; today it is not.  Is it any wonder I choose to allow the
>morality of an act to be judged based upon societal norms rather than my
>own moral viewpoints?

	Dan. You're missing the point. Under _your_ definition the 
	perception of the ethics of an act may change. I accept that. 
	I do _not_ accept your definition. The "ethical" I'm referring
	to has no relation to perceptions of ethics, to divine punishment
	for transgression, or to time.

>
>>     Of course you can define "ethical" however you wish. But if your
>>     definition allows any behavior matching a current standard to be
>>     considered ethical, there is no point to discussing whether the
>>     current standards are ethical -- under your definition, they always
>>     are. "Is eating animals ethical? Of course, that's what we do."
>
>	I have provided numerous examples of ethical behavior that was
>not considered so just a few years ago.  All this points to the obvious
>question, "How can *anybody* judge what is ethical without having both
>personal and societal influences affecting that decision?"  If you

	Easy. You define "ethical" in terms not involving your current
	state, e.g., not involving your culture, your group, your time,
	your nation, your religion, your gender, your sexual preferences, 
	your species. Then you compare acts to this definition.

	Your first sentence, in which a past act is perceived as ethical
	in the present, is not relevant to the question I posed: how do
	you determine the ethical nature of _present_ standards?
	In order to discuss the ethics of the current standards,
	"ethics" must be defined in some way not involving the current 
	standards. Otherwise, your argument is circular, and circular
	logic will only make you dizzy.

>state you can, you aren't human.  If you cannot, you cannot judge
>if an action is ethical or not.  Amazing double-edged sword, isn't it?
>
>>     Your denial of the existence of a universal ethical standard is true
>>     under your definition of "ethical." It is not true under mine ("avoiding
>>     harming others"). Again, unless we agree on the definition, any
>>     discussion is hopeless.
>
>	Lets, for the sake of argument, say that I was alive and in the
>German Army in 1939.  Would my murder of Hitler have been ethical or
>unethical?  How about the atomic, or even the incendiary bombing, of
>Japan in 1945?  Both may have saved lives, both took them.  Wasn't it

	My definition referred to avoiding harming others. It did not 
	preclude there being some situations in which it was impossible 
	to avoid harming others. If you accept my definition, we can
	discuss whether harming animals is unavoidable for the ways in
	which they are currently harmed.

	Incidentally, the nuclear horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can not
	be classified as "saving lives." Japan had been trying to surrender
	previously, under the same conditions under which it finally 
	surrendered.

> <...>

>
>>     Finally, my definition is not a perception, it is a definition. 
>>     Your attempt to show a contradiction was unsuccessful.
>
>	No, your definition is not a perception, but is based upon one.
>To wit, that harming others is to be avoided.  It is fairly easy to
>show instances where harming others is good.  Self-defense killings are

	No, it is not. It is fairly easy to show instances where harming
	others is unavoidable or preferable to the consequences -- not good.

>one, allowing people to smoke or drink of their own free will is
>another, and perhaps even allowing you to spread views contrary to
>mine is another (the only effective means of stopping you being to
>kill you, or make you a deaf-mute quadraplegic I suppose).
>
>	In some countries, the stealing of a loaf of bread is
>punished by the removal of the right hand.  I challenge you to
>find the ethical and unethical sides to this, and to then claim
>one side is more ethical than the other.  I prefer to see both
>sides as ethical for those of each culture.  My definition provides
>this, and is the most universal and flexible because of it.
>

	Yes, your definition is extremely flexible. It will bend whatever
	way you want it. That is not necessarily a virtue.

	Is amputation an ethical response to a crime? My definition requires
	knowledge of the harm which will result from both amputation and
	absence of amputation. My guess would be that amputation would
	usually be found to be overkill.

>	Of course I wish to see suffering lessened and even ended.  I

	Oh, good, then you'll stop eating corpses right now. 

>do not, however, see myself as some benevolent dictator who can
>decide such for others, and I cannot posess the clairvoyance to do so
>according to an ethical code that will not appear for another millenia.
>You, apparently, can, and quite frankly I don't think your claim of
>being able to do so based on some "universal" ethical code is at all
>valid or even likely.

	If you'll recall, I began this discussion by attempting to find
	a common ground, a base definition of "ethical" -- not by dictating
	that definition to those such as yourself who do not accept it. 
	You are suggesting that I am attempting to dictate others' actions;
	in this discussion I am attempting merely to _influence_ others'
	actions.

	My point, again, is that there is no purpose to us discussing whether 
	harming animals is ethical until we agree upon a definition of 
	"ethical." We do not seem to share the same definition, nor do we
	seem likely to arrive at one.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals