From: gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 15:50:34 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <65631@cup.portal.com> <1992Sep11.182244.20318@clpd.kodak.com>

Robert Black writes#

>Willie Bogue writes >

[...]

(Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>I view rights and responsibilities as being inseparable.  This is the
>basis for my argument that the concept of rights should not be applied 
>to animals.  Mr. Black, with whom I have been debating these 
>last few weeks, feels that rights and responsibilities are separate.  

#Separate yes, but often overlapping.  And probably always overlapping
#insofar as adult reasonably intelligent humans are concerned.

#Mr. Black (i.e. I) argued that, even within the class of humans, the
#characteristics for being a holder of a right are not necessarily the
#same as the characteristics for having an obligation to honor that
#specific right in others. 

#Let's forget animals for a minute.  No one denies that at any given time
#there are humans who have more rights than responsibilities.  The common
#examples are babies, children, senile, demented, comatose, the deathly
#ill, mentally handicapped, mentally retarded.  It is no great radical
#innovation in thinking to acknowledge that within the class of humans,
#there are subgroups like these incapable of knowing right from wrong (read
#incapable of having responsibilities) and yet capable having experiences
#(read capable of having rights). 

As I stated before, children will grow up and eventually be able to assume
their responsibilities.  With the seriously ill or mentally handicapped
there is always the possibility, however small, that their conditions will 
someday be cured.  Even for the youngest child or most severely handicapped 
person, certain responsibilities such as taxes still exist. Until the person 
in question is able to fulfill his or her responsibilities, society provides 
agents in the form of parents or guardians to act on behalf of these people.  
Therefore the responsibilities of these people are simply deferred until they 
are in a condition to assume them.

#Since we all realize this, then I claim that we all tacitly recognize
#the NON-EQUATABILITY of rights with responsibilities.  Yes, of course,
#there is some relationship between the two in that responsible humans can
#forfeit their rights by violating the rights of others.  But the
#relationship is a conditional linkage not an identity or a reciprocity.

>Therefore, Mr. Black argues that the concept of rights should be 
>applied to animals. 

#Mr.  Black has argued that an understanding of the non-symmetry of
#rights and responsibilities coupled with an awareness of what
#characteristics motivate humans to assert rights lead to a logical
#conclusion that rights should not be the unique province of humans. 

Even with the impaired humans we discussed above, some responsibilities
still exist.  Certain responsibilities are suspended until the person in 
question is able to assume them.  Animals however, will never be able to 
assume any of these responsibilities..  Your argument that rights exist 
independently of responsibilities is weak.  Even you seem to be having 
some trouble separating the two.

>My personal opinion is that rights are intrinsic to HUMAN beings
>only.  Humans are unique in that we have the freedom to determine 
>our own individual destinies and to choose right from wrong.  The 
>ability to determine our own destiny is the basis for our rights. 
>Responsibility is the price of our rights (freedoms).

#Responsibility is the price for those having that particular capability. 
#It's not the price for everyone.  Therefore it can't be taken to be the
#determinant of who are holders of rights. 

>Mr. Black and others of the Animal rights persuasion seem to view the 
>A.R. movement as another step toward some kind of egalitarian utopia.  

#Not exactly.  Mr.  Black views the AR movement as the inevitable
#and logical extension of previous movements which were based on the
#recognition that certain subclasses of humans could not logically and
#consistently be denied membership in the community of rights-holders.

When the concept of rights is applied equally to all humans we are being
consistent.  However  When you attempt allow animals into this so-called 
"community of rights holders" you become inconsistent  

#Once the underlying reasons for this were realized, it was simply a
#matter of time before the realization dawned that nonhumans must also be
#given some similar consideration. 

I've asked before, where does this process end?  Why not  fish and bugs?.  Don't
they also meet at least some of the criteria you quoted from Regan's Subject of
a Life?  

#An egalitarian utopia is neither possible nor desireable. 

Amen!

>With all due respect to Mr. Black, I really feel that this line of 
>thinking is indicative of the moral confusion and decay that has 
>befallen our society lately.  The idea that we can somehow separate
>rights from responsibilities is especially troubling.  

#What troubles you?  We already do such a separation and have for
#centuries.  You may be troubled because you haven't appreciated the
#non-arbitrariness of my position.  Keep in mind my definition of a
#moral agent (i.e. one has has moral responsibilities):

#	A moral agent is one whose actions and intentions can be judged as 
#	right or wrong, good or bad, and who can and should be held 
#	accountable. 

#I've further stated during a discussion on this subject with John S. Van Etten
#in <1992Jul15.205059.15065@clpd.kodak.com>

#	Secondly, keep in mind that in order to be a moral agent (i.e. to be
#	held accountable for one's actions), there are a number of minimal
#	conditions that must apply to the agent:

#	  1. an awareness of right and wrong.
#	  2. an appreciation of probable and possible outcomes of actions.
#	  3. a choice and the knowledge that there is a choice.

What about someone who is drunk or on drugs?  These substances inhibit a 
person's capabilities to the point where he or she looses the capabilities
you describe above.  Aren't drunks and druggies responsible for their actions?   

#So most of the time, rights and responsibilities happen to go hand in
#hand.  But this is not universal, even among humans.  Once we accept
#that there exist humans who hold rights while lacking the correlated
#responsibilities, ...  then, armed with prior knowledge that there are
#also nonhumans without responsibilities, we must ask if there exist
#nonhumans who likewise have rights disproportionate to their
#responsibilities. 

>Our society punishes those who abuse their rights by restricting the
>abuser's ability to exercise those rights.  If we separate rights
>from responsibilities, how are we to punish criminals who abuse their
>rights, What does society say to someone like Ted Bundy?  "Gee Mr 
>Bundy, we'd really appreciate it if you didn't rape or kill any
>more young women."  

#Your statement here is precisely what makes me conclude that my position
#has not yet been stated clearly enough.  Under my definitions (which
#admittedly might need some honing), Bundy qualifies as a full-blown
#moral agent who is to be held accountable for his actions.

#Society says (or should say) to Bundy: If you kill, you will be caught,
#convicted, and killed (or at least locked up forever so you can never
#kill again).  Your statement does not follow from the decoupling of
#rights and responsibilities, UNLESS Bundy fails the test for moral
#agency.  And I don't believe he does (or did). 

If Bundy's "moral agency" is a separate issue from his being a "moral
object," then we cant punish Bundy for his crimes.  Unless as you have  
as you have already conceded, the two are linked.     

[... irrelevant gun control comment ...]

>>One last point: If humans truly are the only ones who can distinguish
>>right from wrong, then doesn't the responsibility rest on US
>>to apply it to other beings? If we are the morally superior ones,
>>shouldn't we use those supposedly superior morals to determine that
>>killing and maiming others might be wrong?
>
>Yes, certain behavior towards animals is wrong under certain circumstances. 
>Specifically, wanton infliction of pain upon an animal for without any 
>appreciable benefit to either humans or animals is wrong. This is NOT
>a recognition of animal rights on my part. 

#But it's a recognition about something that inheres in animals.  Try
#filling in this blank with some word other than rights and which still
#recognizes that there is SOMETHING about animals that makes the sentence
#true: "I believe it's wrong to unnecessarily hurt animals because of my
#recognition of animal ________________."

The only thing that inheres in animals is the ability to feel pain.  In view 
of that we strive to keep that suffering to a minimum.  However it takes 
much more that to confer rights upon animals.
[...]

>In answer to your question, of course not.  Brain dead or not 
>they are still people.  Why is it that we euthanize terminally
>ill animals but won't do the same for humans?

#Actually we do euthanize people ... in hospitals more often than you may
#think.  It usually takes a form like withholding treatment or
#withdrawing a respirator or an overdose of morphine.  In other cases,
#it occurs less passively; you've heard of the Hemlock Society, of Dr.
#Jack Kevorkian?

If the patient did not consent, to either through a living will or family
members acting on the patients behalf, such acts are murder.  In the case
of Dr. Kevorkian, the patients requested euthanization.  Dr Kevorkian was
charged with murder anyway and his license to practice medicine was revoked. 

#Secondly, it's sometimes been mentioned to me that euthanasia is a right
#that animals have and humans lack.  In this context, the idea is implied
#that this is a right which should be more explicitly extended to humans. 

Do animals have a right to euthanasia?  In my view animals have no rights 
including euthanasia.  I often think it is also done just as often for the 
benefit of the human owners who don't want to take care of a sick animal.  

As far as humans are concerned.  I feel that the option should be available 
to a terminally ill human who consents.

[...]

>In my earlier posts I mentioned that I was brought up with certain 
>religious teachings that helped form my views.  I included certain
>passages out of the bible to support my statements.  Mr. Black
>took exception to my interpretation of these passages and we wound
>up in a protracted debate over the religious implications of meat
>eating.

#Yes.  I do not find that the bible can be convincingly interpreted to
#support meat-eating or to oppose animal rights in the original state of
#creation. 

Let's put that one to rest, OK?
[...]

> I have a real problem with groups like 
>PETA, Operation Rescue, HCI, The Moral Majority, etc. who seek to limit 
>our freedoms and impose their values upon the rest of society.

#I can appreciate that you may not agree with the position or tactics
#of these groups.  But I can't appreciate that anyone can build a
#convincing case solely by stating: "You have no right to impose
#your will on me."  The truth is that every right held by someone
#else causes an imposition on you.  Simply to complain of an imposition
#is not sufficient, in and of itself, to make a case.

Others do not have the right to make our lifestyle choices for us.  As 
long as I am not hurting other PEOPLE, I have the right to live my life 
according to the way I choose.    

>*>Just because certain behavior towards animals is wrong under certain 
>*>circumstances, doesn't mean that animals have rights.   We should not 
>*>torture animals is because it is wrong to delight in suffering.  This does 
>*>not mean animals have rights.  The ideal we are striving for is humane 
>*>treatment of animals while still providing for the needs and goals of 
>*>humans.  This is a far cry from saying that the animals have rights that
>*>humans can't violate for any reason.

#Again there may be some confusion here.  It's probably safe to say that
#nobody has rights that are totally inviolable, given the right
#circumstances. 

I disagree.  Our rights exist unless we do something to forfeit those 
rights.  

[...]

#Robert Black 
#black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
#These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.

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