From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: re:rights?
Originator: itsmine@cahaba
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:04:44 GMT


In article <1992Dec10.035516.13897@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.190710.28822@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec2.164720.10027@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec1.183203.26913@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov26.164526.20111@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <1992Nov24.220654.10860@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Nov16.005820.22320@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>

Robert,
    Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.  I sent you an E-mail
message before X-mas, but it went to the demon.  I've deleted some text
for the sake of band width.  If there is anything I deleted which you wish
to discuss further let me know.

RB>Isn't your view really claiming that you merely have to be a member of
RB>some group where that ability is the norm?  That is, you don't need those
RB>characteristics yourself.

Yes, it can be viewed that way.  But, I don't veiw rights as something
that should be granted from one individual to the next.  I feel that among
the criterion for rights should be the ability to morally distinquish
actions.  To go from one person to the next, determining if this person
meets this criterion or not is unjust.  To say humans have the ability to
do this, hence all humans have this right is. 

[...]> 
> But which would be worse sticking a knife into a person who understands
> morally correct behavior but can't feel anything or someone who does not
> understand morally correct behavior but can feel the excruciating pain?

In the utilitarian view there are other factors involved.  Most
importantly why are you sticking this person?  
>  >
> >>  > >>> >>>[...]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Adult humans are generally both moral agents and moral objects.  They
> >> >have rights and obligations that are usually reciprocal.  But rights and
> >> >responsibilities don't always totally overlap so cleanly.  We know this
> >> >because, for example, a child has more rights in his capacity as a moral
> >> >object than he has corresponding obligations in his capacity as a moral
> >> >agent.  The same is true of animals.  For them as for children, there is
> >> >not an exact symmetry between rights and obligations. 
> >> >
> >> Please clarify what you mean by "...symmetry between..."
> >
> >Children have rights disproportionate to their responsibilities.  This
> >is also what I was trying to say in the following paragraph. 
> 
> Yes but that is not indicative the the norm.  The norm does
> have "symmetry".

RB>Most people, whether they realize it explicitly or not, appreciate that
RB>the symmetry is not universal.  It just a matter of their following the
RB>logic from here.

Please explain.  Universal in what sense?  Universal for all humans? 
..all living things? > >> >


[...]

> The "brain dead" are but a small portion of these.  What about people
> how simply cannot feel pain?  What of the severely retarded?  You've
> probly seen them.  They sit in wheel chairs with their mouths open,
> drouling.  They babble incoherently.  You can kick them and get no
> reaction.  You could simply not feed them and they would starve to
> death.  The can't feel pain.  They don't know or care what happens to
> them . HOW do they fit in?

RB>Actually I've never seen anyone like this with absolutely no feeling
RB>(and my mother used to teach handicapped children of all sorts).  Are
RB>there really people, who, for example, could have their own hand 
RB>summarily chopped off with an axe and never feel anything?  Do they
RB>really have zero awareness of anything around them?

Yes.  There are those that, do to stroke for example, do not recognize
parts of their bodies as bolonging to them. (A good book, written for the
layman, on various neuological disorders is called THE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS
WIFE FOR A HAT, the author slips my mind at the moment.) One of the
stories descibes a man that woke up in the morning to find a severed leg
in his bed.  When he attempted to throw the leg out of the bed he fell to
the floor, not realizing the leg was his own.
Anyway, I digress.  My point is that the ability to feel pain is not a
good criterion for the posession of rights.

> >
> >But notice the principle involved here.  It's not life itself that's
> >held to be sacred.  Rather it's life PLUS certain other attributes,
> >which make the life meaningful to the experiencer of that life.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >  And notice that this is a non-speciesist approach.
> 
> That depends on the "attributes" doesn't it?

RB>You could always conjure up attributes that are speciesist, but the
RB>sentience criterion is an attempt to go beyond this.

Or you could conjure up attributes that are non-speciesist.
It seems to me that creation of separate "rights groups" (i.e. moral
objects and agents  etc..) is a method of altering definitions to include
the expections. Something, for which, you previously condemned Cohen. > 

> >>  > >[...] >
> >> >>gp>>This does not mean that we are free do do what we choose to other animals.
> >> >>gp>>We do have obligations to animals but these obligations are not based on
> >> >>gp>>the rights of the animals.  ...
> >> >>>
> >> >>rb>Then what are they based on?
> >> >>
> >> >>They are based on personal beliefs in humane behavior.   
> >> >
> >> >But WHY do you personally believe in humane behavior?  Is it like a
> >> >belief that blue is a better color than red?  Or is it a belief that's
> >> >profoundly and fundamentally different?
> >> >
> >> >If the great majority disagreed with you, would you try to persuade them
> >> >that humane behavior is the right way? If so, how?  Saying that it's
> >> >merely a personal belief would be about as convincing as a personal
> >> >belief that blue is better than red.  ... Not likely to convert anyone. 
> >> 
GP> >> I would explain to them that each has a responsibility to prevent
GP> >> unnecessary suffering.
> >
RB> >Where does this responsibility come from?
> 
GP> That is difficult to answer.  The only response I can offer is that I get
GP> it from my Catholic upbringing.

RB>That response is fine for you and it might even work for me since I had
RB>the same upbringing.  But it doesn't provide the framework for
RB>establishing a guideline that would apply to others of different
RB> upbringing.

I feel that correlations between human pain and animal pain are
sufficient to convince anyone that it is not acceptable to cause
*unnecessary* pain in animals.
However, I content that the prevention of suffering of humans (even at the
expense of animals) constitute a higher moral priority.

                                          GREG

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion