From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:15:44 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If a "varmint" were as mindless as a cabbage, I don't see how we 
rl> could deprive it in any meaningful way by ending its life or by 
rl> using it in any manner of our choosing.  On the other hand, if an 
rl> organism has the ability to construct meaning in his own life, it 
rl> seems to me that we should take that ability into consideration 
rl> in our subsequent interactions with him/her/it.   If you disagree, 
rl> I'd appreciate hearing how you go about distinguishing between 
rl> ethical behavior and unethical behavior in your own life.

From article <viking.712114040@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Quite simply, I ask myself, "Is it worth killing for?"  To
ds> eat is worth killing for, to be secure in my home is worth it, to
ds> be free is worth it.  That's about it, really.  That my food could
ds> be a cabbage instead of a steer bears no relevance, since I would
ds> be killing either in order to consume them, and I much prefer eating
ds> beef to cole slaw (thus weighting my decision to kill a steer a bit).
ds>
ds> I make little to no distinction based on mental ability...

If mental abilities, ie the abilities that make life meaningful 
for a given individual, don't figure in your ethical formulae, 
then why would it be acceptable in your opinion to pull the plug 
on brain-dead comatose humans, but not ok to kill alert, 
wide-awake human beings?  It seems to me that you do, indeed, 
take mental abilities into account where humans are concerned but 
simply dismiss them in the case of non-human animals.  

If eating is worth killing for, would you defend the activities
of Jeffrey Dahmer?  In view of the fact that you make little or
no distinction based on mental ability, is there any ethical difference
between Jeffrey Dahmer's consumption of humans and my consumption
of pasta (ie ground wheat seeds)?

ds> I make little to no distinction based on mental ability.  Yes, it is
ds> morally right to kill another human in self-defense, and in some
ds> situations it's morally right to murder.  If some alien came down
ds> and decided the same thing with respect to humans, I'd live with
ds> it, or die fighting it, but those are the breaks.  That I didn't
ds> like being hunted down doesn't change the base concept.

Why not?   If such things as pain and fear and discomfort don't
count in the evaluation of "goodness" and "badness", then what does
count in the "base concept"?   

rl> Ah, who knows?  Perhaps if you were to present your views with 
rl> greater clarity, you might be able to convince people like myself 
rl> that it'd be a good thing, and not a bad thing, for us to use and 
rl> abuse other beings to suit our own selfish purposes.  Give it 
rl> your best shot.  

ds> 	Alright, I will: I'm selfish.  I want wildlife to hunt, to
ds> watch, and to play with...

You mentioned in a previous article that slavery was ethically 
ok.  If you truly believe this, is there any sort of action that
you would consider unethical?  Or, are actions simply actions in
your mind...  with no perception whatsoever of good or bad 
consequences?

Incidently, would it be ethically ok for you to steal something
from someone else, if it suited some particular need?  Please
explain.
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals