From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Moral judgements
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:13:26 GMT

In article <62560@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>David Caruso II writes >
>
>>  	When I, and probably most animal rights activists, claim that sport
>>hunting is wrong, we do not do so blindly and without thought or facts.  But
>>since animals rights activists do not hunt, it is feasible to assume that we
>>do not know every detail, law, and statistic related to hunting as some
>>hunters do. 
>>	When it comes to sport hunting, I do not base my decision that it is
>>wrong on statistics.  I do so, because quite simply, I believe that killing 
>>an animal for any other reason besides survival is *morally* wrong. 
>>	Sport hunters can create all the justifications for their action they
>>choose to.  However, they cannot argue that what they do is morally acceptable.
>>	Claiming that they are actually putting the animals out of their misery
>>(and in doing so, are morally justified) is not truly valid.  

I'm not David, but I'll take a shot at some of your very reasonable questions.


>For me hunting is morally acceptable because the judeo-christian teachings I 
>learned as a child tells me that eating animals is acceptable.

Everything we learn as children is not necessarily the final word.  As
we grow, we all need to rethink and refine our knowledge by constantly
exposing ourselves to other ideas and evaluating the childhood lessons
in the light of our later experiences.

As a child, I too grew up under the penumbra of judeo-christian
teachings, which have introduced to the world a lot of good ideas about
how humans should treat other humans but which are unfortunately
somewhat deficient in the task of consistently addressing how we should
view and treat animals.


>  However, I 
>have a big problem with the very concept of "animal rights".

When I first heard the term, it struck me as an obvious oxymoron.  When
I investigated further, it increasingly became clear that the animal rights
concept was an inevitable extension of human rights.  It is not really
incompatible with judeo-christian teaching.  And it has a strong rational
base to it.

Ask yourself why you believe that humans have rights, and then what
relevant differences there are between humans and nonhumans that would
lead you to deny that animals have rights.

Try this.  Take a right that you believe humans have.  Is there a
relevant difference between humans and nonhuman animals which justify
denying that right to nonhumans? In some cases, I think you'll answer
yes; in other cases, no.  For example, if it's wrong to routinely eat
humans, then why would it not be wrong to routinely eat animals.  What
criteria do we and should we apply to determine the moral constraints on
what we eat? Rationality? Presence of a "soul"? Intelligence? Sentiency?

>  Upon what tenet 
>of God or man do you base this concept of "animal rights"?

A.  First:  God.

1.  I'm no expert in what God thinks.  But I have been told that if
he/she is speaking to us through the bible, then Genesis 1;29-31 can be
interpreted to indicate a vegetarian diet for mankind originally.  Then
when the Fall occurred, all the universe was thrown into a disharmony
and disequilibrium.  Suffering and perverse practices predominated and
these included practices like animal-eating.  In order to reverse this
and return to our original state of paradise, we must, among a multitude
of other things, renounce the eating of animals. 

2.  Remember that this newsgroup is called talk.politics.animals not
talk.religion.animals.  Whether or not God exists or cares about what we
do to animals is a discussion more for the latter group and is not
necessarily relevant to a political discussion about animal issues. 
Independently of what we may think God is telling us, there are still
sound moral reasons for recognition by man that animals have rights. 

3.  The modern official christian attitude toward animals seems to be
summed up by Thomas Aquinas, who opposed exploitation of animals, not
because of the effect on the animals themselves but because it could
evolve into cruelty toward humans.  In taking this position, Aquinas,
brilliant man though he may have been, missed an obvious truth.  Notice
that he didn't take a position, for example (to use a modern analogy),
that hitting a baseball with a bat was immoral because it might lead to
hitting human heads.  Instead Aquinas would say that hitting animals on
the head was wrong because it might bring out the sadistic impulses that
would carry over in one's behavior toward humans, but hitting baseballs
is not seen as an activity of equivalent danger.  Why not? Why wouldn't
beating a rug lead to beating other humans? The answer clearly is
related to the radically different natures of baseballs, rugs, and
animals. 

Clearly Aquinas showed a tacit realization that animals were more than
mere objects.  Yet he was unable to follow through to a logical
conclusion: that animals should not be treated in certain ways due to
inherent attributes they possess.

4.  Finally, if you wish to pursue this further, I recommend taking a
look at the works of Reverend Andrew Linzey:
	CHRISTIANITY AND THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS
	ANIMAL RIGHTS
	ANIMALS AND CHRISTIANITY
	ANIMALS AND CHRISTIANITY: A BOOK OF READINGS

The last example includes essays by St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine,
St Bonaventure, St John of the Cross, C. S. Lewis, Albert Schweitzer,
and Leo Tolstoy, among others.


B.  And now, man:

1.  Ted Wayn Altar has posted articles deascribing the two common
arguments for animal rights: Singer's pain/suffering argument and
Regan's "subject of a life" argument.  If you ask him politely, he may
be willing to email copies to you. 

2.  Take a look at ANIMAL LIBERATION by Peter Singer, THE CASE FOR ANIMAL
RIGHTS by Tom Regan, THE STRUGGLE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS also by Tom Regan (in
one chapter he very briefly summarizes the argument covered in the
preceding book) and ANIMAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN MORALITY by Bernard Rollins.

3.  Here is Linzey discussing Regan's claims:  Individuals are 
subjects-of-a-life (i.e. have rights) if they have:
	- beliefs and desires.
	- perception, memory, and a sense of the future including their own.
	- emotional life with feelings of pleasure and pain.
	- preferences and welfare interests.
	- ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals.
	- a psychological identity over time.
	- an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life
	  fares well or ill for them logically independently of their
	  utility for others and logically independently of their being
	  the object of anyone else's interest.

4.  Even a libertarian-style philosopher like Robert Nozick (see ANARCHY,
STATE, AND UTOPIA) recoognizes that animals count for something, though it
is not his purpose to investigate in great depth the particular 
characteristics that determine moral patiency.


>  Furthermore, what gives you the right to pass judgment on me?

The same thing that gives you the right to pass judgment on me if I harm
another human, or commit any action which infringes on the rights of
others. 


>  Morally speaking, what is the 
>difference if I buy my meat at the supermarket or kill it myself?

It's similar to the difference between your killing of another human or
hiring it done? (I trust that I will not again be unjustly charged with
equating humans and nonhumans here.)


>  If animals 
>have rights, why not plants and vegetables?  How about rocks?  

Because animals, like humans, are conscious, thinking, feeling subjects
of a life which matters to them as individuals.  You can't say the same
about plants and vegetables with anywhere near the same certainty (I
realize there are readers within here who may dispute this, but they are
on very shaky ground).  And you can't say the same at all about rocks. 

If I smash a rock, does it care?  If I pulverize a carrot, does it care?
If I torture a dog, does it care?


>The ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is to outlaw all consumptive 
>uses of animals including meat.

First the AR movement consists of a diversity of views.  I don't know
that it's accurate to speak of the ultimate goal of such a diverse
collection of individuals.  Many AR people are vegetarians; others are
vegan; still others are neither.  Some AR supporters favor total
abolition of animal experimentation, while others prefer more stringent
regulations. 

Secondly, is this a bad goal? If I told you of a movement in a
cannibalistic society which aimed at outlawing all consumptive uses of
humans, including the use of humans for food, what would your reaction
be? If you're assuming that an end to all eating of animals is
unequivocally bad, then on what grounds do you base this assumption?

Thirdly, have you ever visited a slaughterhouse?  Have you ever read any 
accounts written by someone who has?


>  For now, the animal rights movement is using 
>hunting,  medical research, and the fur industry to win sympathy to their 
>cause.  

These are seen as some of the most exploitative uses of animals, so it
makes sense to start there ...  although you have left out one of the
worst exploitations: factory farming. 


>In a few years when they have increased their numbers they will go 
>after the consumption of meat.  Isn't it true that most hard core animal 
>rights advocates are vegetarians?  

Of course.  If they weren't, you would rightfully castigate them for
their hypocrisy ...  and if you didn't, then the ever vigilant John Van
Etten, who's always on the lookout for hypocrisy, would not let it go
unnoticed ;-). 
 

>>There are other ways to combat habitat destruction and the suffering of 
>>animals at the hands of human beings.  
>
>Let's hear them.  I'm sure thousands of professional wildlife biologists would
>like to know.

Granted that hunting is the commonly accepted method and, humanely done,
it may be the least cruel method especially for remote and inaccessible
areas.  Many AR supporters favor re-introduction of predators.  Others,
including wildlife managers have been considering methods like
baiting/euthanasia, darting/euthanasia and darting/birth control.  

Hunting as a means for wildlife population control seems to me analogous
to the use of euthanasia by injection to control dog and cat
populations.  It's widely used now but it's not necessarily the best
long-range solution, and wildlife biologists are looking into
non-killing alternatives including trapping/sterilization,
baiting/sterilization, and darting/sterilization.  As a reference, get
a copy of the Oct/Nov 1991 National Wildlife Federation magazine, with
an article discussing the new hormonal vaccine called PZP which uses
dart delivery to block fertilization.

>
>>I find it hard to believe that a sport hunter would specifically go to regions where the 
>>animals are being overcrowded, then shoot the ones that look weak or are dying.  This 
>>is unrealistic.  And it's not a good excuse.  Sure, I don't have all the 
>>answers to these problems, but I can simply say that the hunters' "solutin" 
>>is NOT a solution.
>
>As others have stated hunters are attracted to the areas with the highest 
>wildlife populations. As for shooting the ones that look weak or dying, you 
>obviously have no concept of what wildlife management is all about.  In a 
>nutshell the biologists figure out what the carrying capacity of the land is 
>and then set the limits and seasons accordingly.  If the populations are not  
>controlled in the fall when populations are at their peak the starvation will 
>occur during the middle of winter after hunting seasons have closed.
>
>Do you know what a deer yard is?  I suggest you visit one during a severe 
>winter.
>
>>	I would truly respect someone who contributed to the preservation of
>>the environment as some hunters do, but who did not kill a deer or bear or any
>>other animal. 
>
>Why don't you be that person and leave the rest of us alone?     

Why doesn't he stay and participate in the discussions?  What's wrong with
a diversity of opinions that forces us all to constantly re-examine and
re-evaluate our views?

>
>>	The above is my opinion.  If you disagree, fine.  I'm very willing to
>>entertain a rational debate.  But may I be spared all the insults and 
>>degrading remarks?  That's mostly what I've been experiencing with hunters who 
>>choose to respond to my viewpoints. 
>
>If you refrain from insults (to wit: "scum"),  I promise to do the same.

It's a deal.

>
>Tom Swenson
>
>Freedom of the press is great if YOU own the press.

Thanks, Tom, for some very interesting, thoughful, and thought-provoking
questions.

---
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