From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Rights?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:05:42 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:
>
> Greg writes: 
> >> I think you are confusing consideration, respect and humane treatment with
> >> rights.  They are completely different things. I am considerate of my
> >> parents. I treat them with respect.  I am very nice to them.  Does this
> >> mean they have a right to be treated that way?
> >
> >They have certain innate qualities, which you and I also have and which
> >are the basis for our claims that we want/have rights.  For reasons of
> >fairness and consistency (which a credible ethical theory must strive
> >for), we need to grant/recognize rights to any others to the extent that
> >those others also have these same qualities. 
> 
> I agree.But what should these characteristics be.  I believe they should
> include an ability to know or understand morally correct behavior.

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

> 
> But your past statements suggest that you don't really think this.  Your
> view seems to be that these characteristics include membership in a 'kind'
> whose members in general have these characteristics.  To me this seems to 
> elevate the wrong characteristics ...
> 
> 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?
> 
>  >
> >>  > >>> >>>[...]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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 doeshave "symmetry".

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

> >> >
> >> rb>I've used the moral agent / moral object terminology from Rollin (_Animal
> >> rb>Rights and Human Obligations_).  Regan (_The Case For Animal Rights_)
> >> rb>uses the moral agent / moral patient terminology.
> >> 
> >> Thank you for the references.
> >
> >You're welcome.
> 
> By the way moral agent/moral object thing have any history besides its use
> in the AR movement?

I'm not sure where the specific terminology originated.  But the idea
that the ethicality of actions is at least partly a function of the
projected and intended consequences on the recipients has a long
history. 

[...]

> 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?

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

> >
> >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?

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

> 
> >>  > >[...] >
> >> >>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. 
> >> 
> >> I would explain to them that each has a responsibility to prevent
> >> unnecessary suffering.
> >
> >Where does this responsibility come from?
> 
> That is difficult to answer.  The only response I can offer is that I get
> it from my Catholic upbringing.

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

> 
> Have you read Earnest Verhetsel's THEY THREATEN YOUR LIFE.  
> He makes some interesting piont regarding this idea of defense and fight 
> for survival.  

I haven't read it.  Thanks for the reference.

> 
>>But do you agree that your preference in shirt color is nothing more 
>>than a personal opinion, while your belief that it's wrong to torture 
>>dogs is not just a personal opinion but a conclusion reached from 
>>appreciating a dog's ability to suffer? ...  that is, a conclusion 
>>based on facts and reason? 
> 
> I will not deny that an animals can feel pain and suffer if that is your 
> point.  
> 
> Greg Popken 

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals