From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Let them eat grass!
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:44:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.051030.6840@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.222039.19134@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>
>>	Again with the same reasoning, we may as easily conclude
>>	that social virtues which we hold in high regard do not,
>>	should not, and cannot apply to those outside our social
>>	structure, especially since we cannot objectively determine
>>	which beings other than ourselves are "deserving or owed
>>	such kindness, compassion or respect."  Such a determination
>>	is, by definition, subjective, which confines it to the
>>	realm of personal opinion.  That we make allowances for
>>	other humans is to be expected...we are, after all, of
>>	the same species...but to extend this to some personally
>>	selected sub-set of non-human species is a triumph of
>>	anthropomorphism over analysis.
>
>Isn't there an awful lot concealed in that "after all"? The
>question is why draw the line around members of our own species
>and say "Inside this circle: important. Outside the circle: not
>important". For much of history, people have drawn the line
>around their clan, their tribe, their nation, their race. The
>people of Somalia can hardly be said to be "part of our social
>structure", yet we generally accept that they should be
>accorded at least a certain amount of kindness, compassion,
>and respect. Since this sense cannot derive from their place
>in our social structure, whence can it derive? Surely only
>from an arbitrary line drawn at the species level. Can you
>tell me why this level is non-arbitrary?

	My point is that such determinations ARE arbitrary.  Also, I
	should mention that the phrase "social structure" is used, rather
	loosely, I'm afraid, to include humanity, not just Western
	European society.  Somalis, therefore are of the same species 
	and are accorded the same considerations as other humans.  It
	should be noted that this is not inconsistent with the practices
	of non-human species: each species treats "its own" preferentially.
	The drawing of the "circle" you mention is, in final analysis,
	totally arbitrary, which is why the standard vegetarian attempt
	to classify this species as edible and that species as not, based
	on some arcane ethical definition, are matters of personal choice,
	not universal principles which must be followed by all under pain
	of punishment.  I think we are essentially in agreement, based on
	your paragraph.

	As for "drawing a circle," my personal feeling is that we should
	avoid such fruitless exercises and treat ALL life with equal respect.
	This avoids the fuzziness of ethical classifications based on little
	but emotion and personal opinion while recognizing that, as part
	of Nature, we deserve no more castigation for the methods we employ
	in our search for survival than any other creature.  It does not,
	however, absolve us from the responsibility to take only that which
	we can use and eschew profligate wastefulness.  Nor does it absolve
	us from the responsibility to recognize that our unique lack of 
	natural predators makes it incumbent upon us to accept that control
	of our population is our own responsibility.

>>	And what is this but the fundamentalist call-to-arms saying,
>>	"we are right, and they are wrong?"  There is no respect for
>>	the opinions of others here; no allowance that a fundamentally
>>	different perception of the world might result in a fundamen-
>>	tally altered view of what is "ethical" and what is not.  There
>>	is no admission that variances in moral structure within human
>>	society may not only be acceptable, but in some cases, desirable.
>>
>>	By what standard can one opinion be judged "right" and another
>>	"wrong?"  Opinions are, by their very nature, both "right" and
>>	"wrong," aligning not with some absolute standard, but with the
>>	agreement or disagreement of other opinion-holders.  The closest
>>	we may approach any absolute standard is an opinion which is
>>	enforceable upon others either by agreement or by force.  Even
>>	then, such a standard remains, at its base, an opinion.
>
>Yes, but surely this is true about all the laws in society. They are
>all codifications of "mere opinions", and only a bit less "mere"
>through being widely shared. Do we fail to respect serial killers'
>varying moral structures when we apprehend them and lock them up?
>I suppose we do. Every law on the books amounts in some way or
>another to holding another to a moral standard with which he may
>be in disagreement; so it is hardly a criticism of a proposed law
>to point out that it, too, would do this. I don't suggest that we
>attempt to make meat-eating illegal, but if we did do so it would
>not be fundamentally different from a bunch of white guys sitting
>down and passing laws to the effect that lynching black guys is
>henceforth prohibited.

	Indeed, and when vegetarianism is codified, then I will be forced
	to obey the code.  Until this happens, however, there is no universal
	ethical imperative which allows anyone to judge my non-vegetarian
	eating habits "wrong."  Zealous belief notwithstanding.  Whether or
	not it would be equivalent to the emotionally loaded example of
	"a bunch of white guys sitting down and passing laws to the effect
	that lynching black guys is henceforth prohibited," is not at all
	clear.  Again, I think we may be in agreement, at least in principle.

>>	Yet, it is surely patent that no benefit accrues to the lion from
>>	such a practice.  It is merely salve to the conscience of the
>>	keeper.  If, as has been said, lions eating zebras are not "morally
>>	culpable," then why engage in such an effort?  Clearly, Man simply
>>	imitating that which the lion practices in its natural habitat
>>	cannot be accused of moral turpitude when feeding the lion.  It
>>	may, indeed, be possible to feed lions without killing animals, but
>>	what have we gained?  What has the lion, as a non-moral being, 
>>	gained?
>>
>>	The human has gained peace of mind, perhaps, but the lion has
>>	gained nothing.
>
>The zebra that didn't get eaten has gained a lot. I can't see that
>the human's peace of mind is a significant factor in the calculation.
>That could probably have been acheived by an appropriate dose of
>Valium.

	Perhaps the zebra has gained, or perhaps he has not.  He is most
	certainly unaware of his reprieve.  He is not grateful to either
	Man or the lion, nor has he reason to be: since zebras are no
	longer killed for food, they multiply until their habitat can no
	longer support them, and they begin the long, slow process of
	starvation...not unlike deer in many parts of the U.S.  Is this
	the shining future our manipulation will bring?  If I were a zebra,
	I'd beg that you not impose such a sentence upon my species.

	As far as the human's peace of mind, that is a speculation regarding
	the motivation for "teaching the lion to graze."  I cannot imagine
	why anyone would, in all seriousness, attempt to do such a thing.

>Rich, I love the way you write here. 
>

	I'm not sure whether there's an insult hidden here or not, but under
	the assumption that there is not, thank you for the compliment, and
	please accept my apologies for the suspicion.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)