From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:44:18 GMT

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):
> gp>> I feel that among the criterion for rights should be the ability to 
> gp>> morally distinquish actions. 
>>
> rl>Would you please explain how the goodness or badness of an action 
> rl>is determined by the ability of the victim to make moral 
> rl>distinctions, rather than by his ability to suffer the consequences
> rl>of our action?  
> 
> 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?

> BTW, I just love the way you slip in words like "victim" and "misuse".

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.  

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"?

>>It seems clear that the ability of an individual to make 
>>decisions ought to figure in our willingness to let him/her make his 
>>own decisions, but I see no reason to believe that an individual's just 
>>deserts as a moral patient are predetermined by his own intellectual 
>>abilities.  
> 
> Gosh!  Is this a statement?  Were's the question?  Are you really Russell?

Yes, it was a statement;  I didn't pose a question because none was
required; and yes, I am Russell.   Now please explain why you think
the concept of "rights" ought to be limited to moral agents, and not
applied to moral patients.

> gp>> To go from one person to the next, determining if this person
> gp>> meets this criterion or not is unjust.  To say humans have the ability to
> gp>> do this, hence all humans have this right is. 
>>
> rl>Justice implies "fair treatment".
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> 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.  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?

> 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. 
===================================================================
"LSU cat shooters miss the mark".
The Times Picayune, August 3, 1988
By James Gill, Times Picayune Staff Writer


The cat killers of LSU hope their research will make it 
possible to return "brain-wounded soldiers to some form of 
Army duty." This is an excellent idea and will probably work 
just fine so long as they make them all officers.  

The LSU researchers have managed to get $2 million from the 
Defense Department to fire missiles into hundreds of feline 
brains.  They remove part of the skull before blasting away 
with a helium-powered gun, which, of course, horrifies the 
kitty freaks.  

But this is not just another case of radical animal lovers 
trying to thwart advances in medical science;  most of the 
outcry seems to have come from people, including doctors, who 
have no doubt that the sacrifice of animals is a small price 
to pay for saving lives on the battlefield.  

Eyebrows are raised, however, when the LSU researchers 
solemnly announce the discovery that people who have stopped 
breathing might benefit from some respiratory support.  
Regular breathing is recommended for a healty lifestyle.  

The LSU team, in a 1985 report to the Department of the Army, 
suggested that the infliction of brain injuries on cats was 
necessary because "scarcely any research has been done on 
brain wounds caused by missiles." This is flat-out wrong;  as 
early as 1894 researchers discovered that bullet wounds to the 
brain could cause "transient apnea," meaning that victims 
could die, not of the injuy itself, but of an associated 
breathing lapse.  

THe provision of respiratory support for head injury victims - 
indeed for all patients with otherwise unimpaired vital 
functions - is standard practice.  Now, all these years and 
dead cats later, LSU catches on.  It is blindingly obvious 
that soldiers with brain injuries might need resuscitation, 
although most of them are hardly likely to get it in the heat 
of battle.  

Doctors commenting on the LSU study have, with one exception, 
chosen to remain anonymous.  However, several point out that 
extensive research on brain injuries caused by missiles was 
conducted in the 1970s, using both human and animal models.  
The LSU study is variously described as "nonsense research at 
a phenomenal cost," "vague and unfounded" and "irrelevant to 
the human situation." 

At LSU the cats are shot with a steel-sphere, whereas 
battlefield injuries are caused by fragments of varying sizes.  
Humans, moreover, require up to 18 months to recover from 
brain injuries, cats just a few days.  Half the human victims 
who do recover from such injuries subsequently suffer from 
epilepsy.  

Whether all the differences between battlefield and LSU 
laboratory conditions are enough to render the study entirely 
worthless is not, perhaps, for the layman to say.  Its 
doctor-critics, however, find nothing new to medical science in 
its findings.  

Not all the LSU work is available for assessment, since the 
second of the two studies undertaken for the Pentagon has been 
kept under wraps.  Animal-rights groups obtained a copy under 
the Freedom of Information Act, but so much was blacked out 
that it is impossible to make any sense of it.  The pretext 
for the excisions is that the material is "proprietary," an 
unusual claim for a study paid for by the taxpayers for the 
purported benefit of servicemen.  

There is not even an annual report to consult.  According to 
the Department of the Army, the requirement for a report on 
the second LSU contract was waived for the first year, 1986.  
The 1987 report is still not available.  

So much for accountability.  Obviously the Pentagon is 
maintaining its proud record of strict control over the 
taxpayer dollar.  

The LSU team study has continued despite an assurance by 
then-Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger in 1984 that cats and 
dogs would no longer be used in "wound research." This made 
the animal lovers happy at the time because they believed that 
only such unloved creatures as goats and pigs would continue 
to be shot in large numbers.  

Yet the LSU researchers have been firing away for five years 
and have every intention of carrying on until 1991.  

Their curiosity has killed many a cat, but whether it will 
ever help a wounded soldier remains in doubt.  Perhaps the 
Pentagon will one day get round to addressing that question.  
===============================================================

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals