From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:22:33 GMT

In article <C0DC1w.8pz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan5.041353.29797@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> In article <C0CwMr.68D@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>From article <1992Dec31.210444.19909@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> 
>> I did not make that claim here.  I stated that animals cannot have rights
>> because they do not fit the criterion to possess them, as I see it.
>
>I truly don't understand why you think an individual must be capable 
>of making moral distinctions in order to be deserving of just treatment.
>Are your ideas based on some sort of arguments that you'd be willing
>to share with people who are skeptical of your position?

Share?  Of course. For you Russell, the world.

I believe that in order to have rights beings (not individuals) must be
capable of fully understanding those right, and the concequences of thier
actions.

>I don't know what sort of cases you have in mind when you post 
>articles about animals that don't deserve rights, but I often think of 
>animals that are caught in steel traps, or animals that have just been 
>shot, or animals that have just had their beaks removed, or monkeys
>that have had their nerves severed, etc, etc.  

[I love the way you slip in the Silver Springs thing.]
In all these cases animals don't have rights.  Rights are not something
that you base on situational ethics, as you seem to believe.

That doesn't mean that the treatment of animals in any manner is ethical.
It does mean that we have a responsibility to be humane to animals, not
that they have *the right* to be treated humanely.

 >
>Would you also have us believe that an animal cannot be victimized or 
>misused in any way if it lacks the capacity to make moral distinctions?  
>If not, why would you quibble over terms like "victim" and "misuse"?

No, please see above.
I quibble over these statements because they we used in a context refering
to my research. They carry with them negative connotations and suggest
inhumane treatment, which does not accuately describe the situation.
>
>   Now please explain why you think
>the concept of "rights" ought to be limited to moral agents, and not
>applied to moral patients.

Moral agents and moral patients are concocted definations of designed for
a system of "right giving" with which I do not agree.  To answer this
question as stated would lend credence to this system.  If you wish to
know why I don't feel animals should have rights please reread the above.

 >
>> 
>> rl>  Is it truly fair to base our 
>> rl>treatment of other individuals, not on their abilities, but on 
>> rl>their membership in a class? 
>>>
>> Reread the first statement in this threat.  Does it mention membership in
>> a class?  Or does it mention *ABILITY* to make moral distinctions?
>
>I did reread your statement and it certainly sounded like your concept
>of justice was tied to class affiliation.

Oh, so now its *tied* to class affiliation.  Are you admitting that it is
not *based* on it?

>  Let's suppose that there 
>exist two individuals: an extremely bright chimpanzee who understands
>some of the concepts of social fair play, however rudimentary, and an
>extremely retarded human who has the moral-decision making capacity 
>of a turnip.  Does the chimp deserve more rights than the retarded
>human?  Or would you say that the human deserves more rights simply
>because of his genetic class?

Are you suggesting that chimpanzees are capable of understanding the moral
implication of thier actions?  If so, can they be held responsible (on
an ethical bases) for the consequences of those actions?
  >
>> BTW, Russ old buddy, its been almost three months since I requested info
>> on the alleged cat shooting experiments.
>
>Sure it has, Greg.   Here's an article that I reposted just a few 
>days ago when someone asked for the "gist" of the LSU cat shooting
>incident.  It had previously been posted to tpa on May 25, 1992. 
[article deleted for sake of band width]

Three months, and this is the best you can do.  One slanted article from
one newspaper, using uncited critiques ofthe experiment.
Russell, you would not except such a ref. from me.  How can you expect me
to?


                                         Think of you,
                                           Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals