From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:22:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <65631@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>Willie Bogue writes >

[...]

(Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>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.  

Separate yes, but often overlapping.  And probably always overlapping
insofar as adult reasonably intelligent humans are concerned.

Mr. Black (i.e. I) argued that, even within the class of humans, the
characteristics for being a holder of a right are not necessarily the
same as the characteristics for having an obligation to honor that
specific right in others. 

Let's forget animals for a minute.  No one denies that at any given time
there are humans who have more rights than responsibilities.  The common
examples are babies, children, senile, demented, comatose, the deathly
ill, mentally handicapped, mentally retarded.  It is no great radical
innovation in thinking to acknowledge that within the class of humans,
there are subgroups like these incapable of knowing right from wrong (read
incapable of having responsibilities) and yet capable having experiences
(read capable of having rights). 

Since we all realize this, then I claim that we all tacitly recognize
the NON-EQUATABILITY of rights with responsibilities.  Yes, of course,
there is some relationship between the two in that responsible humans can
forfeit their rights by violating the rights of others.  But the
relationship is a conditional linkage not an identity or a reciprocity.

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

Mr.  Black has argued that an understanding of the non-symmetry of
rights and responsibilities coupled with an awareness of what
characteristics motivate humans to assert rights lead to a logical
conclusion that rights should not be the unique province of humans. 

>
>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).

Responsibility is the price for those having that particular capability. 
It's not the price for everyone.  Therefore it can't be taken to be the
determinant of who are holders of rights. 

>
>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.  

Not exactly.  Mr.  Black views the AR movement as the inevitable
and logical extension of previous movements which were based on the
recognition that certain subclasses of humans could not logically and
consistently be denied membership in the community of rights-holders.

Once the underlying reasons for this were realized, it was simply a
matter of time before the realization dawned that nonhumans must also ne
given some similar consideration. 

An egalitarian utopia is neither possible nor desireable. 

>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.  

What troubles you?  We already do such a separation and have for
centuries.  You may be troubled because you haven't appreciated the
non-arbitrariness of my position.  Keep in mind my definition of a
moral agent (i.e. one has has moral responsibilities):

	A moral agent is one whose actions and intentions can be judged as 
	right or wrong, good or bad, and who can and should be held 
	accountable. 

I've further stated during a discussion on this subject with John S. Van Etten
in <1992Jul15.205059.15065@clpd.kodak.com>

	Secondly, keep in mind that in order to be a moral agent (i.e. to be
	held accountable for one's actions), there are a number of minimal
	conditions that must apply to the agent:

	  1. an awareness of right and wrong.
	  2. an appreciation of probable and possible outcomes of actions.
	  3. a choice and the knowledge that there is a choice.

So most of the time, rights and responsibilities happen to go hand in
hand.  But this is not universal, even among humans.  Once we accept
that there exist humans who hold rights while lacking the correlated
responsibilities, ...  then, armed with prior knowledge that there are
also nonhumans without responsibilities, we must ask if there exist
nonhumans who likewise have rights disproportionate to their
responsibilities. 

>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."  

Your statement here is precisely what makes me conclude that my position
has not yet been stated clearly enough.  Under my definitions (which
admittedly might need some honing), Bundy qualifies as a full-blown
moral agent who is to be held accountable for his actions.

Society says (or should say) to Bundy: If you kill, you will be caught,
convicted, and killed (or at least locked up forever so you can never
kill again).  Your statement does not follow from the decoupling of
rights and responsibilities, UNLESS Bundy fails the test for moral
agency.  And I don't believe he does (or did). 

[... irrelevant gun control comment ...]

>>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. 

But it's a recognition about something that inheres in animals.  Try
filling in this blank with some word other than rights and which still
recognizes that there is SOMETHING about animals that makes the sentence
true: "I believe it's wrong to unnecessarily hurt animals because of my
recognition of animal ________________."

[...]

>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?

Actually we do euthanize people ... in hospitals more often than you may
think.  It usually takes a form like withholding treatment or
withdrawing a respirator or an overdose of morphine.  In other cases,
it occurs less passively; you've heard of the Hemlock Society, of Dr.
Jack Kevorkian?

Secondly, it's sometimes been mentioned to me that euthanasia is a right
that animals have and humans lack.  In this context, the idea is implied
that this is a right which should be more explicitly extended to humans. 

[...]

>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.

Yes.  I do not find that the bible can be convincingly interpreted to
support meat-eating or to oppose animal rights in the original state of
creation. 

[...]

> 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.

I can appreciate that you may not agree with the position or tactics
of these groups.  But I can't appreciate that anyone can build a
convincing case solely by stating: "You have no right to impose
your will on me."  The truth is that every right held by someone
else causes an imposition on you.  Simply to complain of an imposition
is not sufficient, in and of itself, to make a case.

>
>*>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.

Again there may be some confusion here.  It's probably safe to say that
nobody has rights that are totally inviolable, given the right
circumstances. 

[...]

>Tom Swenson
>Freedom of the Press is great. -- If YOU own the press.

---
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