From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:04:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.142408.19094@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In <1992Dec16.172537.9227@clpd.kodak.com>, Robert Black writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Dec12.190047.23254@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>>
>>>>Bob Black wrote, regarding similarities between plants and animals:
>>>>
>>>>Let's assume for a minute that they are not very different.  Does this
>>>>mean we can free most/all animals from labs and replace them with
>>>>plants?  In particular, can we eliminate animals from pain experiments,
>>>>which rely on nervous system responses?  
>>>
>>>	You're confused.  The point of the [deleted] reference was to show
>>>	that there are similarities between plants and animals which may
>>>	preclude simple relegation of plants to the category of "unfeeling
>>>	and therefore ethically irrelevant."  No one has argued that plants
>>>	are MORE similar to humans than animals, and should thus replace
>>>	animals in scientific research.
>>
>>If you really believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity
>>to be assigned a rough moral equivalence, how do you propose to redress
>>the current imbalance which favors animals?  Should we repeal animal
>>protection laws or rush through plant protection legislation?  Should
>>it be against the law to saw off a dog's legs? ... to mow the lawn?  Do
>>you see any ethical difference between these two actions?
>
>	You must be taking lessons from Russell...he makes unjustified
>	assumptions, too.  BTW, when, exactly, DID you stop molesting your
>	neighbor's little boy?

The only assumption is the implied one in the "If" clause of the first
sentence.  By saying that it's unjustified, you're aligning yourself
with those who deny a rough moral equivalence between animals and
plants.  Would you be surprised to learn that some regular readers here
may have believed that you were arguing otherwise?

>
>>You seem to be equating "unfeeling" with "ethically irrelevant."  Is this
>>an accurate inference?  IYO then does "feeling" equate to "ethically
>>relevant?"
>
>	No, AR advocates and "ethical" vegetarians have equated "unfeeling"
>	with "ethically irrelevant."  I've merely restated this claim, and
>	offered some evidence which shows that plants may not be as far
>	removed from animals as those groups would like to believe, and
>	that plants are not "unfeeling."  Since you are certainly a member
>	of the first group, if not the second, I ask YOU, "Does 'feeling'
>	equate to 'ethically relevant?'"

"Equate" may be too strong a word to characterize the relationship. 
"Linkage" might be better. 

>
>>If there are similarities between plants and nonhuman animals which "may
>>preclude simple relegation of plants to the [ethically irrelevant]
>>category", then aren't there similarities between nonhuman animals and
>>human animals, which actually *do* preclude simple relegation of animals
>>to the ethically irrelevant category?
>
>	What a silly question: of COURSE there are.  Who ever said
>	otherwise?

Again would you be surprised that your past postings could have been
interpreted to be a defense of the view that animals and plants should
be relegated to equivalent moral categories?

---
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