From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:32:13 GMT


Russell Lawrence wrote:
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? 

Chris Morton writes:
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.  

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

From article <Btx4xJ.92C@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> And once again, "If Blacks WERE no better than animals...?".  You've 
cm> hit your stride now.

In the previous passage above, you seemed to be saying that the 
"goodness" or "badness" of an ethical action ought to be measured 
by opinion alone, as though our minds might be incapable of digging 
deeper than the level of mere "acceptability" and 
"non-acceptability".  If that's the case, please tell us: 

   -- Would sport hunting of humans by aliens be "good" simply
      because the aliens might not recognize the impact that such
      actions might have on humans?
   -- Was the enslavement of Dred Scott "good" simply because his
      owner considered slavery to be a "good" thing for blacks?
   -- Would you agree with me that appeals to force, namely the 
      ability of humans to defend themselves from aliens or 
      the ability of deer to defend themselves from humans, 
      are inherently fallacious?  

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

cm> And once again, ethically acceptable for WHO?

I can understand that murder may seem acceptable to murderers, 
and that rape may seem acceptable to rapists and that slavery may 
have seemed acceptable to the owner of Dred Scott.  I can also 
understand why sport hunting might seem acceptable to aliens.  
What I'm asking you, however, is this:  Would you be able to name 
any reasons why such actions might not be good?  

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