From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Date: 15 Oct 1992 02:22:14 GMT
Organization: none visible
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

To:
*Russell Lawrence (russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ)

*If you're saying that we shouldn't coerce animals living in
*nature to obey codes of conduct based on ideas beyond the scope
*of their understanding, most AR advocates would be in full
*agreement.  On the other hand, your arguments will break down
*quickly if you're suggesting that intelligent humans should be
*excused from their ethical responsibilities, simply because lions
*and tigers are excused.

I'm afraid this discussion could split in to two parts.  The first point I 
made in my orginal post was that I accept the proposal that the 
minimization of pain is generally a good thing.  However, I also 
wanted to say that I think this "ethic", as proposed, is by no means 
absolute; ie. I envision many instances where this "ethic" could be 
superceded.  Admittedly, I do not have a problem with eating many 
forms of animal tissue.

The second point I made was that if our desire to minimize pain is in 
fact paramount, then it is indeed our ethical responsibility to prevent 
predation.  Clearly the modes of hunting employed by predators 
(besides humans) inflict pain on the hunted.  To use the lion example,
hunted zebras are sometimes disemboweled and feasted upon before 
their death or unconsciousness.  Despite the gruesomeness of this 
image, you are correct that I think it absurd to expect the other 
animals to obey codes which are beyond their understanding.

But why do we not force our codes upon animals?  Why would most 
of the AR advocates be in agreement despite the desire to minimize 
pain?  I think it is because there *are* numerous considerations 
which supercede the one Ted first noted. (One possibility would be a 
belief that animals, in nature, should be obstructed as little as 
possible by human intervention. There are doubtless others, some of 
which we would not agree upon.)

****

I am not suggesting that intelligent humans should be excused from 
their ethical responsibilties simply because other animals are 
excused.  Instead, I disagree with the "ethical" premise.  Therefore, I 
feel no such responsibility as you do.  While I can see many of the 
basic tenets from which you have developed your own ethical 
system and can reconstruct much of the framework (ie. I can see 
where you are coming from), I personally do not use the same 
starting assumptions and therefore do not finish in the same place.

At least two routes exist to reconcile these differences.  The first is to 
consider my ethics to be at fault.  That is, despite my intelligence (at 
least relative to some lower primates) and acknowledgement of your 
ethical underpinnings, I might actually be incapable of 
understanding (or accepting) your code of ethics.  If it is truly 
beyond my scope of understanding (like other animals), then by your 
own words, I do not see where I should be held responsible for my 
omnivorous pursuit or prevented from doing what appears to come 
naturally for me.  The other route is to understand that ethical 
systems, by their very nature, are completely dependent on the base 
assumptions used.  To reiterate from above, our endpoints differ 
because our starting assumptions differ.  That is; logical, intelligent 
people can remain logical and intelligent and still disagree with one's 
viewpoint.

Whatever...
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
(timi@mendel.berkeley.edu  *OR* timi@wormsex.berkeley.edu)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals