From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Fantasy vs. Ethics.  Was: Closure on sport hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:34:10 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> As I've pointed out repeatedly, I have no need to prove that an action
rl> is "absolutely" wrong.  To the contrary, all I need to prove is that
rl> the class of actions have consequences that cause more harm than good.
rl> 
rl> Incidently, you've made it clear that you don't respect the
rl> concept of animal rights, but you've been rather secretive in
rl> addressing my allegation that you don't have much respect for
rl> human rights either, but instead pay consistent hommage to
rl> "god's rights", as interpreted by Mike Linan.  If you have the
rl> courage to do so, please address the question that I've posed
rl> several times previously:
rl> 
rl> If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
rl> children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
rl> command?  Or, would you disobey?  Would you agree with me that
rl> my body is the property of my mind?  Or would you be inclined to
rl> believe that my body is the property of some "god"?

From article <1992Aug14.194459.22311@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Ooops, I deleted the question.  

No problem.  I've edited the question back in. :-)  

jh> At any rate, it is clear that 
jh> Mike Linan does not respect your concept of animal rights.  It's 
jh> interesting in the paragraph above how quickly your concept of 
jh> animal rights quickly becomes "THE concept of animal rights," 
jh> your "absolute."

Not entirely.  I don't believe that rights are etched in stone, nor
do I believe that sets of rights ought to be constant from one 
individual to the next.  Given the vast range of different 
abilities in different organisms, it wouldn't make sense to say 
that a retarded human ought to have the right to attend Harvard, 
nor would it make sense to argue that a cancer-ridden puppy with 
untreatable chronic pain should be permitted to decide whether or not 
to opt for euthanasia.  Such "rights" would be meaningless under the
specific circumstances that I've described.

On the other hand, it's logically inconsistent to say that it 
might be wrong to torture a chimp, but perfectly ok to torture a 
gorilla, given the fact that both animals consider pain to be 
equally disagreeable.  

While I don't consider myself to be an absolutist, I'm not an
ethical relativist either.  In particular, the notion that all 
ethical belief systems carry equal weight seems ludicrous to me.  
Relativist moral philosophies seem to prevail only among social 
scientists who think that criticism is "off-limits", so to speak, 
and that beliefs ought to be accepted at face-value without 
regard for the underlying facts and arguments.   On the whole,
such philosophies had their heyday in the 20's, when it was widely
(mis)believed that ethical diversity was something of a norm.

jh> He has a concept of animal rights that he has 
jh> articulated on numerous occasions;  including a belief in his 
jh> obligation to the animal for a quick kill;  a belief that in 
jh> killing deer he limits the suffering of a non-controled herd;  
jh> his statement that the meat he kills and consumes is better for 
jh> his health than that which he would buy at the grocery store;  a 
jh> belief that being in nature focuses for him his awareness and 
jh> concern for the natural environment;  a belief that killing 
jh> animals for food is not wrong and as a group of actions does not 
jh> constitute a greater harm than good.  I guess I understand him to 
jh> be making these points, demons and goblins aside...You or I may 
jh> not like certain elements of his belief structure, however, to 
jh> feign a lack of understanding of it seem disingenuous to me.  

The concepts that you've listed here could, indeed, be considered 
a philosophy of sorts, but most of the points would hardly 
qualify as a philosophy of animal (personal) rights.  To the 
contrary, most of them represent a philosophy of property rights.  
You may disagree, but it seems to me that personal rights and 
property rights are often antithetical in popular practice.  

The business about demons and spirits isn't tangential, as some 
readers may be inclined to believe.  You and I would probably 
agree that the mind of Jim Hoskins owns the body of Jim Hoskins.  
I would go a step further and declare that the mind of a deer
owns the body of that same deer.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but Mike's given me reason to believe that 
"god" is the real owner and master of Jim Hoskins' mind and body.  
In effect, this notion would treat Hoskins as property, and thereby 
diminish respect for his personhood to a substantial degree.  
No doubt, Hoskins would continue to have many rights in Mike's mind,
but ultimately, he's always going to be a vassal servant of
the "Lord".  

It seems to me that this feudal view of the relationship between god
and man filters down, so to speak, into fundamentalist views of 
the relationship between man and animals.  Mike acknowledges, for 
instance, that animals have some rights, but the notion that 
animals might own their own bodies would seem completely radical 
to a man who considers himself to be the property of the god(s).  

There exists a secular version of this same theory, BTW, which 
substitutes men with technical or physical prowess in place of 
gods and goddesses.  According to these theorists, it's ok for
men to hunt animals... since animals are "lower" in the cosmic
power struggle; it's wrong for humans to hunt humans... since
humans have more or less equal rank;  but it'd be ok for 
super-intelligent aliens to hunt humans if they occupy a higher 
niche in the cosmic order.  The consistent theme in all three 
cases is that the rightness or wrongness of an act is measured by 
the power of the perpetrator rather than the effect that the 
action might have on all parties, especially the victims. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals