From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research (repost)
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:57:39 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <By3r42.IHv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>[This is a repost]
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> It seems clear that any animal that lives within a social 
>rl> organization must be capable, either through instinct or learned 
>rl> behavior, to recognize the rules of conduct that are applicable 
>rl> within the society in which they live.  Do such rules constitute 
>rl> "rights" as I normally use the term?  Not really.  Nevertheless, 
>rl> they do represent a kind of moral order.  
>
>From article <1992Nov18.195621.4607@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>gp> The behavior that your dogs are showing is not some sort of 
>gp> "moral order".  It is refered to as a peck order.  Morals have 
>gp> nothing to do with it.  The dogs do not consider an action (say 
>gp> to take something from the other dog) as morally right or wrong 
>gp> What they are considering is whether they will be physically 
>gp> chastized by the other for their actions.  
>
rl>How do you account for the fact that this "right" appears to be
rl>respected by the large dogs as well as the small dogs in a given 
rl>pack?   

It is commen in animals behavior that "status" of the animals in confict
often takes president over shear physical force.  Often times the smaller
animal wins a "stand off" because it has some superior status (i.e.
it is alraeady established in the territory, it is already the dominant
male of the herd etc...).
>
>gp> In other words I'm not going to do that because I'll get my ass 
>gp> kicked.  Don't bring morals into this.  
>
>Many of the religious "rights" that you take for granted took 
>shape in the late 17th century, in the wake of the Thirty Years 
>War in europe...  a war that "kicked the butts", as you might 
>say, of protestants and catholics alike.  To the extent that we 
>humans have learned to respect religious rights because of the 
>pain that we've inflicted or experienced in armed conflicts, 
>would this diminish our respect for rights in some way?  


No, inflicting or experiencing pain had nothing to do with our "resect
for" religious rights.  We as a people have gradually and all to slowly
beccome aware that all people (humans) are created equal.  And regardless
of race or sex all people are capable of mral counscienc and hence
deserving of rights.
>
>gp> Are you suggesting animals can make conscious moral decisions? 
>
rl>I'm suggesting that some animals are conscious.  My views on the 
rl>moral decision-making of those animals would depend on some 
rl>undecided definitions that you and I are still attempting to 
>formulate.  

Websters defines morals as:
1) Of or relating to priciples of right or wrong behavior.:
Ethical<~judgements>
2) Expressing or teaching a concept of right behavior.
3) conforming to a standard of rights behavior
4) Santioned by or operative on one conscience or ethical judgement.

Can you explain to me how animal  can make an ethical judgement, can they
understand the concept or principle of right behavior?

In addition (as I have sayed before), with the rights you with to endow on
animals comes a responsibility not to abuse those rrights. How do you
suggest we apply those to animals? If all animals have this inalienable
right to life, is the fox guilty of murder when it kills the rabbit? 
 

>gp> Russell, twice you have used the "Humans are animals." argument 
>gp> to suggest that human rights should be granted to animals.  But, 
>gp> animals are not human.  
>
rl>Whoa.  I stated that human rights are a subset of animal rights, 
rl>as demonstrated by the obvious fact that humans are animals.   You've
rl>jumped to some conclusions, Greg.

This is the same as the below arguement.  You are assuming the because a
sub population is endowed with a particular characteristic that the
entire population has that charcteristic. That argument is invalid.  There
is a falacy there.
>
>gp> Humans are animals.
>gp> Humans have rights.
>gp> Hence, all animals have rights? 
>
rl>I don't agree with this argument.  I think rights should be based
rl>on thinking and feeling abilities.  Genetic arguments and
rl>genetic classifications don't carry much weight, imho.  Nor should
rl>rights be based on historical custom as you seem inclined to do.

I too believe that rights should be based on thinking abilities.  (though
I am not certain of feeling abilities.) They should be based on beings
ability to determine (think) what is morally correct.  Historical custom
as you call it is often the bases for morals.
>
>gp>  Can you claim 
>gp> that animals know the difference between right and wrong on a 
>gp> moral bases?  
>
Rl>Can you claim that catholic heretic-burners and protestant witch-burners
rl>understood your moral arguments re: torture?  

YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION RUSSELL.

No Russell, I don't know any.  But if again you must insist on using human
situation lets address the problems in S. Africa.  I believ be in many ways
it is similar to the situations you speak of.  The people in the country
are being denied certain rights because of the estabished powers.  Because
these people have the ability to understand, formulate and make decisions
based on morals (as do all humans) they are entitled to equal rights.  The
actions of the powers that be are immoral, unjust, unethical, and perhaps
criminal.
>
rl>If not, perhaps you should admit that our respect for the thoughts and
rl>feelings of other beings (as well as codes of conduct) often stems
rl>from learned behavior. 

I will admit that. All of these things are learned behaviors (i.e. non of
them are inate or genetic.)

rl>My dog pals apparently endorse an unwritten,
rl>but nonetheless learned, set of rules and regulations. 


es, the behavior of you dogs is learned.

rl>Is that much
rl>different from the rules that you've apparently learned re: the
rl>wrongfulness of torture?

Yes it is very different!  The rules and regulations I have lerned are
based on morals and  and ethics.  Your dogs have no concept of ethical
behavior, justice or fairness.  Ethics are purely human.  Rights are based on
ethics. Hence rights are purely human.

Russell, please answer the above question.  That is, can youy claim that
animals know the difference between rights and wrong on a moral bases?
-- 
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