From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: rights?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:21:41 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

> jpoller@novell.com (Contents may have settled during Shipping) writes:
>>  black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert 'save my soul' Black (x37236)) writes:

>>=> Let's postulate that as you are walking down the street, a stranger
>>=> approaches and breaks your jaw with a hard punch to the face. 
>>=> 
>>=> Presumably you would be disturbed by this and would object to it.  Would
>>=> you object because (a) it causes you unneeded and unwanted suffering? (b)
>>=> you are able to morally distinguish actions? (c) humans in general can
>>=> morally distinguish actions?
>>=> 
>>=> It seems to me that most people would select (a).  It seems clear that
>>=> the ability to suffer is exactly the trait which gives us an interest in
>>=> not being punched and therefore which forms the basis for our formulation 
>>=> of rights.  Do you disagree?

	Yes.  It seems that (c) would be the better choice.  Unneeded and
unwanted suffering is easily refuted by a trip to the dentists office,
where a simple cleaning and perhaps a filling is unneeded and unwanted
pain and suffering.  After all, we did without it for millennia, and
the tooth will die and fall out on its own anyway.  Hell, a broken jaw
isn't a picnic, but when you equate all suffering you leave yourself
high and dry for any quick comparisons.  I've been in a wheelchair for
several weeks, I've been shot twice, and I've had a filling.  For me,
the filling was the procedure that involved the most suffering.

>No again.  I'm saying that the underlying reason why anyone would have
>an interest in asserting, formulating, or claiming rights traces to our
>ability to suffer (and related abilities).  (I'll assume the flaws in
>your statement are obvious and not dwell on them further.)

	The interest may be there, but only against the suffering and
not necessarially the agent that causes it.  If you ever attempt to
check out a dog that has just been run over by a car, you will find
that the dog will attempt to bite you, even if you have not touched it
yet.  The dog doesn't care who or what caused the suffering, only that
pain exists.  A human, on the other hand, submits to suffering for the
net benefit it causes.  Humans assert, formulate, and claim rights.
Animals merely react to stimulus, which you claim gives them rights.
I suggest you drink only distilled water -- the euglena also reacts
to stimulus, and being only a single cell it hardly deserves rights.

>We care what happens to us.  In an effort to protect ourselves, we have
>developed a system of rights.  And we have included under this system
>members of our species who have the relevant abilities, independently of
>whether they themselves can assert any rights in spoken language.  Why
>would we exclude others, simply on the grounds of their membership in
>another species?

	When you can differentiate between "species" and "the general
abilities of a species" your argument will make more sense.  Until then,
the euglena gets the same rights as a retarded child.

>>What you don't understand is that an individual only has those rights
>>that were granted to them by the collective powers controlling that
>>individual.  ...

>I understand this very well.  What I don't understand is why these
>"collective powers" resist so vehemently the calls for greater
>philosophic consistency and fairness in the process of granting rights.

	Perhaps because we don't agree with your views?

>You already answered this yourself.  Her rights are granted by the
>"collective powers controlling that individual."

	Today, that's the government and the courts.  However, rights
may be violated at will, but they still exist.  Take a hunter to court
for Murder in the first degree and if you win, you'll have a case.
Until then, your views have no backing.

>No guilt in either case, sorry.  There's just an earnest desire to see
>an increased reduction in the suffering and exploitation of sentient
>creatures.  Would you suggest that since we can't solve every problem
>and eliminate all suffering, that we not try at all?

	Only if you say that charity starts at home and make your life
100% exploitation-free as an example.  I bet you cannot do it.

>Emotional appeals to guilt won't work.  You'll have to use logic and
>reason to convince me.

	Why, when you eschew those arguments out of hand?

>Do you favor repeal of the 1958 federal Humane Slaughter Act? Do you
>oppose the thousands of anti-cruelty statutes which are in place around
>the nation? If not, then you have already accepted the basic notion of
>animal rights, because these laws grant implied rights to animals. 

	So where do *you* draw the line?  There is a great difference
between implied rights and rights.  It is implied that you have a
right to be protected from criminals by the police.  No such right
has ever withstood judicial scrutiny.  Death Row inmates might wish
to argue the Right to life, but it was over-turned on the technicality
of 1st degree murder.  Like I said, where do you draw the line?  If
you believe a rabbit has a right to life, do you expect to arrest the
wilf and hang him for his crime?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals