From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: re: moral Judgements
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:35:12 GMT

> >In article <64032@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com
> >(Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:

[...]

rb>
> >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).  

[...]

ts>
> 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.  

I used subsistence here as a shorthand for "must hunt in order to avoid
starvation" not as an attempt to inclusively justify all aboriginal
hunting, as another poster replying to this had concluded.  Within this
definition, I don't think #2 applies very often, even for the remaining
aboriginal cultures. 

I appreciate that your traditions are important to you, but they alone
do not justify hunting in any objective sense.

ts> >You still haven't justified animals having rights.  
> 
rb> >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.
> 
ts> 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.  

These are a few of the unanswered questions:

1. What does "dominion" mean in the bible?  Does the assignment of it
to humans really rule out recognition of rights for animals?

2. Why shouldn't Genesis 1:29 be interpreted as promoting a vegetarian
diet as the original diet for humanity?  Why shouldn't any later
apparently conflicting dietary dictums be seen strictly as a consequence
of man's own perfidy?

3.  Suppose some lives are more "valuable" than others (whatever that
means - keep in mind that you introduced the term in arguing against
animal rights).  How does this rule out rights for "less valuable"
creatures?

4. How does the fact that some animals eat other animals prove that it's okay
for humans to do so?  How does the fact that something is "quite natural"
support the contention that it's "not wrong?"

5. If the animals are inferior to us, then why should we use them as ethical
models to guide us in determining what's right and wrong? On the other
hand if the animals are equal or superior to us to the extent that they
serve as models of ethical behavior as you are implying, then how can we
justify killing and eating them?

ts> 
> >>Because some animals 
> >>can feel pain,  our sense of decency and compassion says we should not 
> >>inflict UNNECESSARY pain.  
> 
rb> >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."
> 
ts> Why do our moral attitudes towards animals have do be an all or nothing
> propisition?  

They don't need to be.  Many rights that humans have are irrelevant to
animals.

[...]

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