From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 02:20:42 GMT


John Van Etten writes:
jve> Of course we were "imposing" on Dahmer by preventing him from 
jve> doing what he wanted to do.  The issue is whether or not society 
jve> is right to do so (as it was in Dahmer's case).  Dahmer's victims 
jve> were people with rights.  That's the difference.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Let's not confuse Dahmer's personal right to control his own mind 
rl> and body with his (non-existent) property right to appropriate 
rl> the bodies of other individuals.  To the extent that we fail to 
rl> make a distinction between freedom of personhood and freedom of 
rl> property, the whole notion of rights would be turned upside down 
rl> and subsequently fall apart.  

In article <Btut7x.LM3@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> Other HUMAN individuals.  He in fact had a right to appropriate 
cm> the bodies of nonhuman animals for his eating enjoyment, subject 
cm> of course to applicable game laws.  People are not property.  
cm> Nonhuman animals can be.  

In 1857, Dred Scott asked the Supreme Court of the US to answer a 
question that depended on the distinction between personhood and 
property, and he got a response that was quite similar to your 
comments above.  Presenting the majority opinion of the court, 
Chief Justice Taney pointed out that Dred Scott was the legal 
property of his owner, and that slaves had no inherent right to 
sue for their freedom in the federal courts.  To grant Scott such 
freedom, the court reasoned, would have infringed on the legal 
property rights of his owner.  Would you have agreed with Taney?  
Or would you have argued, as JJ Rousseau had argued nearly a 
century before, that the laws ought to be based on philosophical 
arguments, rather than basing the philosophical arguments on the 
existing laws?  

rl> BTW, do you still believe that it would be morally acceptable for 
rl> "superior" alien (aryan) individuals to hunt human beings for 
rl> sport if/when they have the power to do so?   If so, how
rl> would you distinguish your "might makes right" hypothesis with
rl> the nazi ethos?   In view of the comments you made earlier today
rl> about intellectual courage, I hope you'll be kind enough (and
rl> courageous enough) to defend your views on this topic.

cm> Morally acceptable for WHOM?  If we can kill or otherwise deter 
cm> them, it's a moot point.  Likewise, when the deer can kill or 
cm> otherwise deter us, hunting will be a moot point.  But of course 
cm> this is still the same strawman that it always was.  Failing a 
cm> demonstration on your part, the aliens DON'T exist while the deer 
cm> DO.  This is another example of the typical AR "Well if two and 
cm> two DID equal five...." argument.  

If Dred Scott had been able to kill or deter the man who claimed 
to own him, then the question of the rightfulness or wrongfulness 
of his enslavement might have been a mute point.  Unfortunately, 
the balance of power in Scott's day rested with slave-owners, not 
with slaves.  Still, the rightfulness or wrongfulness of Scott's 
servitude was an appropriate topic for intellectual debate, and 
that debate ultimately paved the way for the Emancipation 
Proclamation.   

Are you willing to discuss the philosophical arguments concerning 
distinctions between personhood and property, or, are you going 
to continue begging the question by invoking legal status quos as 
well as the rather weak argument that the morality of killing 
deer would be a mute point if deer had the ability to shoot back?  

Do you agree with John that it would be ethically acceptable for
aliens to hunt humans for sport simply because they might have
the power to get away with such actions?  Or, would you be able to 
name one or two reasons why such hunting might not be good?

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