From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:39:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.232801.15847@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.181051.9112@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.013124.4246@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec21.180401.27092@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In article <1992Dec18.142408.19094@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>
>>For context, here is my previous statement:
>>
>>  "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? ..."
>>
>>>
>>>>>	You must be taking lessons from Russell...he makes unjustified
>>>>>	assumptions, too.  ...
>>>>
>>>>The only assumption is the implied one in the "If" clause of the first
>>>>sentence.
>>>
>>>	Is there some number of assumptions required before any can be called
>>>	"unjustified?"
>>
>>1 [One]
>
>	Then it was not grammatically incorrect to call your assumption
>	"unjustified," was it?

No it was not grammatically incorrect.  Nor did I say it was.  My only 
purpose was to insure that I was not misinterpreting your point.

>
>>>>By saying that it's unjustified, you're aligning yourself
>>>>with those who deny a rough moral equivalence between animals and
>>>>plants.   [...]
>>>
>>>	No, I'm not making any moral statements at all.  I'm merely saying
>>>	that dismissal of plants (and "lower" animals) as physiologically
>>>	"inferior" may be a bit hasty, based on the tidbits of knowledge we
>>>	have to date.
>>
>>My implied assumption was this: 
>>
>>	You believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity 
>>	to be assigned a rough moral equivalence.
>>
>>You've now pronounced this assumption to be "unjustified."  This seems
>>to imply that either (1) you believe animals and plants don't have said
>>similarity, or (2) you plead ignorance about whether or not they do. 
>
>	Your assumption is unjustified because I have said nothing about
>	any morality which might surround the consumption of plants for
>	food.  As I said before, my purpose in posting the excerpt from the
>	study was to show that there may be more similarities between
>	plants and animals than might be immediately apparent.

So your purpose was to explore biological similarities and you had no
intention or desire to be drawn into any ethical discussion which might
attempt to draw moral conclusions from biological similarities or
dissimilarities? Note that I'm just trying to find out what your purpose
was in posting some recent scientific evidence followed by the leading
question:

**    Now, just how different ARE plants from animals?

Can you see how easily this could be interpreted as an invitation to a
discussion about whether animals and plants should be relegated to
similar ethical categories?

>
>[...]
>
>>>>>>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. 
>>>
>>>	Why the ambivalence?  And how does it "unlink" when you get to
>>>	garden slugs and amoebas?
>>
>>The ambivalence stems from potential exploitation of ambiguity in the
>>term 'feeling.' There seems to be a linkage between one's ability to
>>suffer and one's worthiness of being an object of 'ethically relevant'
>>treatment.  The greater the ability, the tighter the linkage. 
>
>	First, let me point out that "pain" and "suffering" are not equi-
>	valent terms.  As Martin, I think, pointed out, "pain" certainly
>	does result in "suffering," but all "suffering" is not "pain."

I don't recall "pain" being mentioned here, but your point is
well-taken.  I have at times used "pain" in a broader sense that's
compatible with the definition put forth previously by Ted Robinson.  In
that broader sense, "pain" is meant to be interpreted somewhat
non-literally. 

>
>	That said, I ask again: at what point does the linkage dissolve, and
>	how is this determination made?  What about garden slugs and amoebae?

I don't know when the linkage dissolves.  It currently is beyond the
scope of my ability to determine.  But that doesn't matter.  We can see
many obvious cases where it does not dissolve.  And there's enough
debate about those cases to last us all for a while. 

>
>[...]
>
>>>	You asked, in essence, "Aren't non-human and human animals
>>>	sufficiently similar that we should be somewhat concerned with
>>>	their welfare?"  You asked nothing about plants; I answered in
>>>	the affirmative.  There is nothing mysterious and misleading
>>>	about that.
>>
>>Actually I was asking a little more than that.  I was looking for an
>>acknowledgement that stronger ethical claims can be made on behalf of
>>animals than on behalf of plants.
>
>	Of course you were.  You've already decided in the affirmative and
>	would like to have me agree.  Unfortunately, I'm dealing with data
>	from a reviewed study, not ethics, in this thread.  It is YOU who
>	brought up the ethics issue.  I eat dead plants; I eat dead animals.
>	Make of that what you will, but do not make more of it than is there.

So it's my impression that you wish to restrict your participation to
the domain of scientific data and prefer not to take a position on any
ethical implications of that data?  You are content to discuss the
obvious truth that people DO eat dead plants and animals without further
inquiry?

---
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