From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: re: moral Judgements
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:54:18 GMT

In article <64032@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com
(Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:

[...]

ts> >>Suppose I was to decide that trees have a right to life?

[...deleted some talk about spiking trees ...]

rb> >This doesn't make sense.  Wouldn't these putative tree rights include
> >the right of a tree to not have a spike driven into it? The only thing I
> >can figure here is that you're referring to a couple of alleged
> >incidents involving Earth First! a few years ago.  If so, I believe that
> >these were misguided attempts to stop environmental destruction and save
> >the "wild places" that you treasure, not moves to prevent violations of
> >"tree rights."
> 
ts> Apparently they believed that the humans did not have the right to cut
> down the trees.  

Okay, but then the perpetrators weren't acting in defense of any alleged
"tree rights."  Most of the time, these tangential issues of "tree rights",
"plant rights", "bug rights" appear to be diversionary tactics to distract
attention from the case for animal rights, which is far stronger than the
case for any of these other "rights."

ts> They felt perfectly justified in subjecting humans to
> pain and suffering in order to protect the trees.  It still stands as
> example of one group imposing it's own version of morality upon others.

Again the only cases were Earth First!ers and they are not an animal
rights group, as is clear if you peruse recent copies of their Journal.
Also these incidents from what I can tell were very small in number
(which of course doesn't excuse them, but helps us to keep them in
perspective).

[... deleted discussion of hunt sabotage techniques ...]

rb> >While not condoning these types of actions, I would ask these questions:
> >(1) Are they calling for any violence or use of force against hunters?
> >(2) If they were urging these sabotage actions to prevent loss of human
> >life - and given their belief that animals have a right to not be
> >subjected to arbitrary termination of life - wouldn't you say they were
> >acting quite moderately by not attacking the hunters directly?
> 
ts> I certiantly wouldn't call those actions "moderate."  I think the 
> appropiate terms here are trespassing and vandalism.  Would PETA 
> members be justified in destroying coyote dens and hawk nests in 
> order to "save lives"?    

Of course not, but that's irrelevant.  Does the PETA pamphlet call for
destroying hunters' homes and lodges?

Although I don't condone property destruction at all, it seems like
these actions are relatively moderate given the basic assumptions
under which the hunt saboteurs are operating.
 
ts> >>  This brochure also encourages activists "During actual 
> >>hunts, assemble a group of people early in the morning and use air 
> >>horns and whistles to warn animal into hiding."  
> 
rb> >These efforts are evidently aimed at avoiding death of animals and
> >are not targeted toward hunters directly.  As such I don't see them
> >per se as examples of blind emotion, lies, or intimidation - simply
> >attempts to warn off potential victims whose lives are in danger.
> 
ts> Then why are these actions most likely to occor during opening day or 
> during special hunts?  Also, why is it that they almost always notify 
> the press in advance of these actions?  

To publicize the cause, I would presume.  I still don't see how using
horns and whistles to warn animals of impending danger can be considered
"blind emotion, lies, and intimidation."

[...]

ts> >>I realize PETA doesn't 
> >>speak for the entire animal rights movement but they are one of the 
> >>larger and more vocal groups out there.
> >>
> >>It is because of the increasing militancy of groups like PETA, I view 
> >>the animal rights movement as a direct threat to my values and my freedom.
> >>Like many of my fellow hunters,  I have a strong desire for my children 
> >>to enjoy the wild places, the freedoms  and traditions  I have enjoyed.  
> >>I was raised to believe that in America we  have the right to live 
> >>according to our own beliefs not those of a radical minority.
> 
rb> >This is not technically true, as you undoubtedly know.  You do not have
> >unlimited unfettered rights to live according to your own beliefs when
> >these beliefs infringe on the rights of others.  
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ts> This has always ment the rights of other people not animals.  It seems to 
> me that the views of groups like PETA definately infringe on the rights
> of others -- in this case others means people.

Yes, but to PETA, the term "others" includes more than just humans. 
From that perspective, I would assume that the infringement on rights of
humans (i.e.  hunters in this case) is justified by the prior
infringement by these humans on the rights of some nonhumans.  If you
accept their basic premise (and I realize that you don't - but if you
did), don't their actions seem really quite logical and moderate, as
long as they refrain from any aggressive actions directly against the
hunters?
 
rb> >One of the major points of disagreement within this newsgroup is over the 
> >issue of who is included within this class of others.
> 
ts> Don't you mean WHAT is included included within this class of others.
 
No.  "What" refers to inanimate objects.  "Who" refers to living beings.

---
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