From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:27:20 GMT

In <BrxrpL.9HA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>In article <viking.712035221@vincent1.iastate.edu>, Dan Sorenson:
>ds> A "varmint" is a "a person or animal regarded as objectionable." 

>I wonder if Tim Rigg had your definition in mind when he stated that 
>it's morally acceptable to kill "varmints".   

	Quite probably it was a similar definition -- pests are not
limited to one species, size, or anything else, and hence can very
with area.  That I draw no distinction between human pests and animal
pests just shows how little I like human pests.

>ds> Perhaps you will soon realize that many of us don't consider life 
>ds> itself so sacred that killing is morally abhorrent in all cases.  

>Do you ever consider killing to be morally abhorrent?  Would it 
>be ethically acceptable for one being to kill another being for 
>purely selfish reasons, eg to increase one's own wealth, power, or 
>prestige?  

	I can probably think of some scenario involving these motives
that would be ethical, but I usually define killings based on these
motives as unethical.  It's a situational thing, and one that will
likely change in response to many factors.

>With regard to your comments about sanctity, be advised that I 
>don't hold chemical reactions in reverence, not even a complex 
>set of chemical reactions like life.  On the other hand, I do 
>have quite a bit of respect for the mental capabilities that make 
>life meaningful.

	Have you ever watched Star Trek TNG?  One episode had Commander
Data declared a life form.  I wonder, would you make the same declaration
of another computer, should one ever be built that was powerful enough
to challenge the mental capabilities of an animal?

>If a "varmint" were as mindless as a cabbage, I don't see how we 
>could deprive it in any meaningful way by ending its life or by 
>using it in any manner of our choosing.  On the other hand, if an 
>organism has the ability to construct meaning in his own life, it 
>seems to me that we should take that ability into consideration 
>in our subsequent interactions with him/her/it.   If you disagree, 
>I'd appreciate hearing how you go about distinguishing between 
>ethical behavior and unethical behavior in your own life.

	Quite simply, I ask myself, "Is it worth killing for?"  To
eat is worth killing for, to be secure in my home is worth it, to
be free is worth it.  That's about it, really.  That my food could
be a cabbage instead of a steer bears no relevance, since I would
be killing either in order to consume them, and I much prefer eating
beef to cole slaw (thus weighting my decision to kill a steer a bit).
I make little to no distinction based on mental ability.  Yes, it is
morally right to kill another human in self-defense, and in some
situations it's morally right to murder.  If some alien came down
and decided the same thing with respect to humans, I'd live with
it, or die fighting it, but those are the breaks.  That I didn't
like being hunted down doesn't change the base concept.

>Ah, who knows?  Perhaps if you were to present your views with 
>greater clarity, you might be able to convince people like myself 
>that it'd be a good thing, and not a bad thing, for us to use and 
>abuse other beings to suit our own selfish purposes.  Give it 
>your best shot.  

	Alright, I will: I'm selfish.  I want wildlife to hunt, to
watch, and to play with.  Would you say it's a good thing that I
keep my ferrets under strict house arrest, or a bad thing?  Keep
in mind I'm doing it for my own selfish reasons because letting
them on the street means they will die shortly -- they are not a
wild animal and have no survival instincts in the wild -- and then
I'd have no pets to play with.

	Similarly, is it a good thing that my hunting keeps the deer
in my state healthy, or a bad thing because I'm going against the
natural order of starvation and sickness to control herd sizes?

	I choose to think both are good things, and I'm doing both
of them for my own selfish reason of liking it.  If you want, we
could extend this to the idea of parenting, namely that humans have
to act like parents and control the animals because the changes
we have wrought on the environment ensure that not doing so will
cause more harm to humans, and animals, than present efforts do.
Killing is one, but only one, of those efforts.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >