From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: What Animal "Rights" People are _Really_ Saying?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 20:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.173735.4816@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.221332.26644@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:

[...]

>>   Given the second quote, then, I see no real distinction between the first
>>   quote as presented and the expanded quote you've supplied.
>
>Not necessarily true.  The second quote most likely has been stripped
>from a wider context, where there of course would appear a further
>clarification describing the sort of equality that is being discussed. 

	On the other hand, this is at least as speculative as my conclusion;
	perhaps even more so, since I had a printed statement from which to
	deduce.  Your point is well taken, however.

>As a paragon of clear writing, you are well aware of the ways in which
>removing a statement from its surrounding context can radically alter
>the intended meaning - especially when the removal is done selectively
>by one who is hostile to the views being dissected. 

	Ah.  Do I detect a note of sarcasm here?

>>   As an aside, I'm astounded that I find myself in agreement with the text
>>   of the second quote.
>
>If your interpretations are correct, then you must indeed feel a
>profound sense of joy at finding an intellectual adversary who adheres
>to a critical part of your somewhat iconoclastic position.  We here on
>the net feel privileged to have been present for such a momentous
>meeting of minds and we thank you for sharing this moment with us.  :-)

	This is more like a symphony than a single note, but so be it.
	Apparently the irony in my original paragraph was not as clearly
	presented as I had hoped.

	"Iconoclast" is truly the correct term, since I am involved in "the
	destruction of a religious image" and do "oppose its veneration."
	Indeed, I could even say that I am "attacking an established belief
	or institution."

	On the other hand, the logical conclusion to my line of thought
	has not yet been discussed because my opponent has not yet gotten
	beyond the limits of his anthropocentric viewpoint and taken the
	idea to its logical conclusion.  When this happens, there will be
	a brief moment of euphoria before the obvious response is presented.
	The clues are all there; in fact, I've essentially given it away
	in my original paragraph, below.  I'm simply waiting for the question.

>>   Where Ms. Newkirk and I differ, however, is in the
>>   application of this realization to daily life...and I might extend the
>>   scope beyond Ms. Newkirk's to include amoebae and algae, violets, and
>>   oak trees.  It's interesting to note that the smallest form of life with
>>   which Ms. Newkirk is familiar seems to be the ant or clam.
>
>Do you really wish to extend the scope of moral patiency beyond the point
>reached by Ms. Newkirk?

	I'm not entirely clear about what you mean by "moral patiency,"
	but I will say that Ms. Newkirk's halt at ants and clams is as
	arbitrary as the line drawn by others at sentience/sapience.  Her
	choice has no basis in "absolute morality" since morality is a
	totally human creation and not a constant of the natural world.

	I suggest, however, that further discussion take place under the
	thread now under way in which this very topic is being debated.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals