From: gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:35:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Sep4.191956.12902@clpd.kodak.com> <65411@cup.portal.com>
  <2AABBAAB.16479@news.service.uci.edu>

Willie Bogue writes >

>Also, rights are a human concept. You seem to be arguing that they 
>are something that either is or is not intrinsic in living beings
>humans developed the concept and choose to apply it to whatever
>organisms they wish.

Although he didn't quote me, I assume Willie is addressing 
comments I made in previous posts.  To put this all in 
perspective, here is the debate in a nutshell:  

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

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).

Mr. Black and others of the Animal rights persuasion seem to view the 
A.R. movement as another step toward some kind of eglatarian utopia.  
With all due respect to Mr. Black, I really feel that this line of 
thinking is indicitive 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.  

Our society punishes those who abuse their rights by restricting the
abuser's ability to excercize those rights.  If we separate rights
from responsibilities, how are we to punish criminals who abuse thier
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."  

Unfortunately, this thinking isn't confined to the AR movement.  
The United States is quickly becomming a nation where the people
will have neither rights or responsibilities.  We are getting a 
the government we deserve -- One that treats it's citizens like 
the irresponsible children we want to be.  A good example of this 
trend gun control.  I find it very interesting that the staunchest 
supporters of gun control are also the staunchest opponents of the 
death penalty.

>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, certian behavior towards animals is wrong under certian circumstances. 
Specificaly, wanton infliction of pain upon an animal for without any 
apreciable benifit to either humans or animals is wrong. This is NOT
a recognition of animal rights on my part. I believe that the taking of 
an animal's life for food, clothing, medical research, or any other 
usefull purpose is not wrong.     

ruman writes *
*In article <65411@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan 
*Swenson) writes:
*>
*>I already answered this one too.  
*>
*>"For me the defining characteristic that separates 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."  
*>
*
*Does this mean that you consider all those humans unable to distinguish
*right from wrong and those unable to "evaluate actions from a 
*moral perspective" fit for consumption? Circumstances permitting
*would u have no ethical objections to eating the meat of brain dead
*people or people with near zero IQs? 

I know a GREAT recipie for roast Quayle:-)

In answer to your question, of course not.  Brain dead or not 
they are still people.  Why is it that we euthanize terminaly
ill animals but won't do the same for humans?  May I suggest that
human life has an intrinsic value that is entirely lacking in animal 
life?  Probably the best answer I could give you is that the brain
dead human has a chance (albeit infitesimaly small) that he may
some day recover and fufill his human potential.  

*I was also wondering how you are aware of the fact that animals are
*incapable of making moral judgements. 

Because my dog told me so:-)  Seriously, can any one produce  one
shred of evidence that they can?

*Or are you of the view that morality is absolute and are guided 
*solely by your religious texts?

In my earlier posts I mentioned that I was brought up with certian 
religous teachings that helped form my views.  I included certian
passages out of the bible to support my statements.  Mr. Black
took exception to my interpertation of these passages and we wound
up in a protracted debate over the religous inplications of meat
eating.  The truth is that I am not very religous.  In fact, the 
only time anyone ever sees me in church is when someone gets married 
or someone dies. 

The answer to your question is no, I don't view morality as absoloute.  
I acknowledge that what is right for me may not be right for the
next guy.  On a political level, I feel that people should be given 
the chance to sort these things out for themselves and allowed to 
live thier lives accordingly. I have a real problem with groups like 
PETA, Operation Rescue, HCI, The Moral Majority, etc. who seek to limit 
our freedoms and impose thier values upon the rest of society.

*>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.
*>
*In effect you are saying it is wrong to torture animals not because
*it is causing them suffering, but because it is wrong for humans
*to engage in "inhumane" acts. Why is it wrong to deal with animals
*in an inhumane fashion? Why do you want to view your actions
*towards animals in a moral perspective? 

This thread was originaly about the moral basis for the Animal Rights
movement. That is why I have been arguing from a moral perspective.
I think I answered your other question earlier in this posting.

*Is it because you think they are capable of feeling and have emotions? 

Animals are definately capable of feeling emotions. But that is not
enough for animals to have rights.

*If so what is the difference between an act based on emotions 
*and an act based on some morals. I feel everyone of man's , so 
*called moral judgements can be shown to be based on emotions 
*and are in fact emotional judgements. 

If all of us based our moral judgements on emotion, our society would
be in much deeper trouble that it is now.  Can you imagine a world 
where emotions like rage, jelousy and lust can become the basis for 
moral judgements?  

*I have just begun reading this group and am unaware how long this
*discussion has being going on, but would appreciate if you can 
*answer my questions even u have answered them before..  I will admit 
*I am not a particularly well-read or erudite person in philosophy. 
*Most of my questions are based on gut feelings.

I tried to answer your questions as best as I could.  I'm no great
philosopher myself.  I'm just very opinionated--That's all.

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