From: gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: re: moral Judgements
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 11:49:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

>In article <64032@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com
>(Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>>David Caruso II writes >>>>
>>Thomas Alan Swenson responds to David >>>
>>Robert Black responds to Thomas Alan Swenson >>
>>Thomas Alan Swenson responds to Black >
>>Robert Black responds to Tom Swenson *
>>
>>I deleted most of this stuff because we've seen it all before and 
>>it wastes bandwidth.  

>Really? All of it has been seen before? I wrote some things I've never
>written before or seen posted in this newsgroup since becoming a regular
>reader in January.  Who's been coming up with my ideas before I think of
>them? :-) Anyway this seems like quite a cavalier dismissal of the
>numerous questions, comments, and counterpoints which I so painstakingly
>composed in response to your previous statements. 

Relax!  I was just trying to make this thread a little easier for 
the rest of us to follow.  These postings were getting up over 20K.
I find sifting through hundreds of lines of quoted text tiresome.  
I prefer to keep my postings succient.  If you want to quote the 
entire thread every time you have something to add, be my guest.   


>>  The 
>>responsibility is for the whole earth not just the animals.
>>
>>While we are on the subject of stewardship.  Hunters feel a strong sense 
>>of stewardship. This responsibility extends far beyond the animals.  It  
>>includes the wild places we hunt in and the preservation of our traditions.
>>This why hunters have supported conservation long before it was the 
>>"politically correct" thing to do.  It is also why so many hunters fight 
>>so passionately to preserve our rights and continue our traditions.  
>>We want our children and grand children to enjoy the things we have 
>>enjoyed.    

>Great.  But there are only three defenses of animal killing which I have
>found convincing in all the verbiage that has been posted on the
>subject: (1) self-defense or defense of another; (2) subsistence; (3)
>It's the most humane way or the only practical way to control
>populations (with the stipulation that we will always be looking to find
>a better way).  

>If you can satisfy any one of these three conditions, then we don't have
>an argument.  But to say that killing animals is part of a tradition and
>is automatically justifiable on that basis is not very convincing to me. 

Most forms of hunting satisfy #2 or #3.  Some forms satisfy both.  
Although, your definition of subsistence may be a little different 
from mine.  I don't care what you think about our traditions.  The
reason I brought them up is so you could understand why we fight so
hard to preserve them.  

  
>You still haven't justified animals having rights.  

>So you say.  I've cited references.  And since the word rights is a
>source of much confusion and has been debated at length by many great
>philosophers over the ages, I find it more productive to determine on
>what principle a particular individual bases his acceptance of human
>rights.  Starting from that point, then we can see whether consistent
>application of that principle requires the inclusion or exclusion of
>animal rights.  I've presented questions designed to elicit this
>information and those questions went unanswered.

I think I've answered most of your questions.  Furthermore, I spent 
a great deal of time explaining the teachings and personal experiences 
that form the basis for my views.  

>>Because some animals 
>>can feel pain,  our sense of decency and compassion says we should not 
>>inflict UNNECESSARY pain.  

>Your sense of decency and compassion guides you, but what about those
>who don't share your sense of decency and compassion?  On what grounds
>do you tell them that they can not torture animals for their amusement?
>... other than by using reasons that derive from the inherent characteristics
>of the animals themselves?  And once you invoke the inherent qualities
>of the animals then, it seems to me, you're talking about that quality
>which we know as "rights."

Why do our moral attitudes towards animals have do be an all or nothing
propisition?  You will note that I emphisized the word  unnecessary.  
I see a great deal of differance between shooting a pheasant for dinner 
and setting a dog on fire just to watch it burn.  We both agree that 
humans have certian rights that can't be violated for any reason.  For 
me the defining charachteristic that seperates humans from animals is the
ability to tell right from wrong.  You have to admit that the ability
evaluate our actions from a moral perspective is uniquely human. That
ability more than anything else separates humans from animals and 
justifies humans having rights.  

>Having said that, I will add that "rights" seems like the natural word
>to me, but I'm not inexorably tied into a particular word.  It's the
>idea that's important.  If you find yourself choking on the word
>"rights" in this context, feel free to suggest another word as long as
>it retains the same connotations.

Changing the word wont change my mind.

>>I view the concept of animal rights in an 
>>entirely different light.  When  you say animals have rights you are 
>>also saying animal are our equals.

>No, I would only be saying that animals are our equals if I were to
>claim that all animals had exactly the same identical rights as humans.
>I haven't said that.

I would like to know exactly what rights you feel that animal have
and what charachteristics of the animals justify those rights. Also,
what charachteristics of animals prevent them from having the exact 
same rights as humans.  

>>  It goes against everything I believe.

>This appears to be a statement of your own mental (and unreasoning)
>resistance to a new idea.  It's not a viable or credible argument for
>denying that animals have rights.  Isn't this an example of the "blind
>emotion" that you criticize down below?

No it is not blind emotion.  It is the culmination of everything I have
learned up to this point in my lifetime.  

>>
>>*Secondly, your analogy falls apart because, the right that you're
>>*claiming involves a third party.  Consider the case of a cannibal who
>>*recognizes your right to abstain from eating human flesh.  All he asks
>>*of you is to recognize his right to decide this issue for himself and
>>*live according to his own beliefs.  What about a man who likes to beat
>>*women? He recognizes your right not to do it and only asks that you
>>*recognize his right to decide for himself?  Isn't it clear that when you
>>*introduce a third party (i.e. a victim), the rules change?
>>
>>By inventing rights where they have do  not exist. You are attempting to 
>>change the rules.

>No.  I'm attempting to apply rules in a consistent (and therefore fair)
>fashion.  And these are not just any arbitrary rules, but rules that
>most people claim to believe in.

These rules have been universaly recognized as applying to humans only.  
When you attempt to apply these rules to animals you are changing them.

>>Suppose I was to decide that trees have a right to life?

>Then to convince anyone, you would have to use facts and logic to
>support your contention. ... just as the animal rights philosophers
>like Tom Regan (see THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS) have done.  The
>conclusions about animal rights are not arbitrary ones; they're based
>on reason.  You and others may not agree with the reasoning, but it
>definitely was not a case of some guy waking up one day and "deciding"
>that animals have a right to life and then starting a movement to
>force his "decision" on others.

I don't have a problem with you attempting to win others over to your
point of view.  That's what forums like this one are for.  When groups
like PETA start harassing hunters or people who wear fur, they have
crossed the line.  I feel the same way about the Pro Lifers who baracade
abortion clinics.  

>>  Does that give 
>>me the right to force you to stop using wood and paper?  Don't laugh, 
>>there are people out there who actually believe trees have rights.   

>Perhaps, but I haven't heard of them.  Tell us more.

>>Some of them have been known to drive steel spikes into trees causing 
>>serious injury to anyone who cuts into one with a chain saw.  

>This doesn't make sense.  Wouldn't these putative tree rights include
>the right of a tree to not have a spike driven into it? The only thing I
>can figure here is that you're referring to a couple of alleged
>incidents involving Earth First! a few years ago.  If so, I believe that
>these were misguided attempts to stop environmental destruction and save
>the "wild places" that you treasure, not moves to prevent violations of
>"tree rights."

Apparently they believed that the humans did not have the right to cut
down the trees.  They felt perfectly justified in subjecting humans to
pain and suffering in order to protect the trees.  It still stands as
example of one group imposing it's own version of morality upon others.

>
>>*If you're correct in deducing the ultimate goal, is that a bad goal if
>>*it's accomplished through persuasion by the use of facts and reason?
>>
>>The problem is some animal rights groups are not using facts and reason.  
>>They are using blind emotion, lies and intimidation to accomplish their 
>>goals.  I have a copy of a pamphlet published by People for the Ethical 
>>Treatment of Animals entitled "How to Sabotage Hunts A Guide for 
>>Defending Wildlife."  It starts out "A small but violent minority known 
>>as American hunters..."  

>Most likely they are making this statement from the animals' view -
>hence the use of the word "violent".  Since I'm not a PETA member (let
>alone a member of their editorial board) I'm merely speculating here. 
>But if someone is trying to kill you, wouldn't you think of him or her
>as violent?

These pamphlets were not distributed to animals:-)  Hunters do not delight
in inflicting pain and they do not hate the animals they hunt.  One does
not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why PETA would attempt to
depict hunters as blood thirsty killers.  By depicting thier opposition in
the worst possible light they hope to further thier cause.  They are 
invoking negative stereotypes of hunters in the same way that Hitler 
invoked negative stereotypes of jews.   
  
>>Among the tactics advocated are "Plaster the floors of hunting blinds 
>>with cow dung, rotten eggs, or other unpleasant substances.  Tear down 
>>tree stands."

>While not condoning these types of actions, I would ask these questions:
>(1) Are they calling for any violence or use of force against hunters?
>(2) If they were urging these sabotage actions to prevent loss of human
>life - and given their belief that animals have a right to not be
>subjected to arbitrary termination of life - wouldn't you say they were
>acting quite moderately by not attacking the hunters directly?

I certiantly wouldn't call those actions "moderate."  I think the 
appropiate terms here are trespassing and vandalism.  Would PETA 
members be justified in destroying coyote dens and hawk nests in 
order to "save lives"?    

>>  This brochure also encourages activists "During actual 
>>hunts, assemble a group of people early in the morning and use air 
>>horns and whistles to warn animal into hiding."  

>These efforts are evidently aimed at avoiding death of animals and
>are not targeted toward hunters directly.  As such I don't see them
>per se as examples of blind emotion, lies, or intimidation - simply
>attempts to warn off potential victims whose lives are in danger.

Then why are these actions most likely to occor during opening day or 
during special hunts?  Also, why is it that they almost always notify 
the press in advance of these actions?  

>You may say that these people are misguided (by preventing deaths
>now, you may say, they are causing more suffering and worse deaths
>later).  But as long as they are not harassing or threatening hunters
>and as long as they are not trespassing, then why wouldn't they have 
>the same right to be there as a hunter would?

The subject of the pamphlet was sabotaging hunts.  Isn't that the same 
thing as harassing hunters.  That pamphlet didn't say to walk through 
the woods with air horns because it is a nice day for a stroll.  

>>I realize PETA doesn't 
>>speak for the entire animal rights movement but they are one of the 
>>larger and more vocal groups out there.
>>
>>It is because of the increasing militancy of groups like PETA, I view 
>>the animal rights movement as a direct threat to my values and my freedom.
>>Like many of my fellow hunters,  I have a strong desire for my children 
>>to enjoy the wild places, the freedoms  and traditions  I have enjoyed.  
>>I was raised to believe that in America we  have the right to live 
>>according to our own beliefs not those of a radical minority.

>This is not technically true, as you undoubtedly know.  You do not have
>unlimited unfettered rights to live according to your own beliefs when
>these beliefs infringe on the rights of others.  
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This has always ment the rights of other people not animals.  It seems to 
me that the views of groups like PETA definately infringe on the rights
of others -- in this case others means people.

>One of the major points of disagreement within this newsgroup is over the 
>issue of who is included within this class of others.

Don't you mean WHAT is included included within this class of others.


Tom Swenson
Freedom of the press is great -- If YOU own the press!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals