From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re: moral Judgements
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:03:02 GMT


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

Russell Lawrence  writes:
rl> The two dogs that live with me apparently think that it's "wrong"
rl> to take an object from the mouth of another dog, but "right" to take 
rl> an object that another dog has apparently abandoned.  They also
rl> think that it "right" to greet visitors and "wrong" to defecate on
rl> the floor of the house/den.   And BTW, they figured out these things 
rl> without any help from me.   Does this mean that they have the
rl> same rights as President Bush?

From article <64595@cup.portal.com>, by gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson):
tas> I find it hard to believe that your dogs are capable of understanding 
tas> abstract concepts like right and wrong.  Dogs are extremely loyal to
tas> thier owners (or should I be P.C. and say companion humans:-)). I 
tas> suspect your dogs trained themselves because they were eager to please 
tas> you.  In my experience dogs know whether or not they have pleased you 
tas> even if you don't say anything.  

Of course.  And likewise, dogs understand when they've pleased or 
displeased other dogs, which accounts for the code of "etiquette" 
that apparently guides their actions toward one another.  The 
fact that dogs may gauge the "rightfulness" or "wrongfulness" of 
an action in terms of its immediate social repercussions, and not 
in terms of some absolutist pretense ("god says this" or "god 
says that"), doesn't diminish the fact that dogs do, indeed, make 
distinctions between "good" and "bad" actions.  

tas> Do they have more rights that George Bush? NO.  
tas> Are they smarter than Dan Quayle? MAYBE:-)

:-)

tas> One other thing, I have two children ages 4 and 9.  Children have the
tas> ability to learn right from wrong.  That doesn't mean that they will
tas> automatically teach themselves as you claim your dogs have done.  Kids
tas> have to be taught what is right and wrong.  As a matter of fact, I 
tas> suspect that many of our social problems stem from the fact that too
tas> many children are born to parents who are incapable or unwilling to 
tas> teach thier children right from wrong.

Perhaps, but I would hasten to point out that our distinctions 
between "right" and "wrong" are the product of intellectual 
discovery.  The fact that the vast majority of ethical ideas, once 
discovered, are subsequently passed around from one person to the 
next, doesn't preclude us from asking questions, and digging 
deeper, and possibly challenging the "rightfulness" of many 
activities that enjoyed traditional acceptance.  

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