From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Fantasy vs. Ethics.  Was: Closure on sport hunting
Date: 18 Aug 1992 18:51:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.

In article <BszJvu.DrC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <16em1qINNbmc@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Can you PROVE deer are thinking and feeling animals?  

>rl> Yes.  Assuming, of course, that you weren't preparing to introduce
>rl> what philosophers call the "other minds" problem, in which case it
>rl> would be impossible to prove that Mike Linan himself is a thinking/feeling
>rl> being.

>ml> Exactly right.  You can't perceive what is in my mind or how a 
>ml> turnip can be deprived of anything just because you kill it.  Do 
>ml> you think that just you can't imagine or perceive something that 
>ml> it must not be?  You CAN conceive or imagine a deer being just 
>ml> like a human in it's emotions and ability to feel pain.  But, 
>ml> there is no way to prove that a deer feels pain AS WE KNOW IT or 
>ml> feels emotions AS WE KNOW IT.  Just because you can imagine it or 
>ml> there might be some evidence that might suggest it doesn't make 
>ml> it so.  You have never been a deer or a turnip so you don't know.  

>To the extent that I consistently respect the arguments raised by 
>the "other minds" problem, we'd be unable to prove that you feel 
>pain as I know it or that I feel pain as you know it.  
>Nevertheless, most of us would agree that our perception of pain 
>is quite similar in view of the similarity in our behavioral 
>responses as well as the common features between your 
>pain-sensing mechanisms and my own.  


So just because a deer is similar to us in the way it might feel pain
you judge that it deserves to live more than a turnip because it is
less like us and you cannot understand what form of pain it might feel.


>If deer demonstrate the same pain-avoidance responses that I would
>observe in Mike Linan, and if anatomical studies show strong 
>similarities between deer pain-sensing apparatus and Mike Linan pain-
>sensing apparatus, then it would be reasonable to assume tha pain is 
>just as unpleasant to a deer as it may be to a Linan.  To the extent
>that you invoke skepticism in just those cases where it suits
>your convenience, it would be reasonable for me to assume that your
>philosophy is inconsistent, and hence, unsound.


Again in your view.  I do not discount the evidence that suggests (does
not prove) many animals can feel something similar to pain as we know
it but just because this is so doesn't mean they deserve to live any
more than other living things that aren't as similar to us IMHO.  I
also think that just because man has not proven plants and other non-
furry creatures can feel pain as we know it they have any less desire
or "right", to use your terminology, to live.


>rl> You've stated previously that you consider cruelty to dogs and 
>rl> cats to be morally wrong.  If dogs and cats were mindless things, 
>rl> like simple, windup toys, would it be possible to treat them 
>rl> cruelly in any meaningful way?  

>ml> How could you.  They are not alive.

>You're contradicting yourself again.  Do you know for a fact that 
>windup toys do not feel pain... simply because they don't contain 
>self-replicating proteins?  


No, I don't think I'm contradicting myself.  I know that windup toys 
are a creation of man and are not alive.  If in fact you would like to
believe they are alive simply because it has not been proven they are
not in any fashion, that is fine.  Remember, I am just pointing out that
I think it is you who is discounting the lives of non-furry creatures over
those of furry creatures.  I do not discriminate and acknowledge the value
of all life.  I choose to respect their lives although I do eat them all.


>What's the basis for your assumption that dogs and cats feel 
>pain?  If it's simply a matter of their status as living beings, 
>why are you opposed to dog and cat shooting but not opposed to 
>plant killing?  


I am only opposed to dog and cat killing if they are the property of others
or if it is unnecessary.  I am also opposed to killing of plants or anything
if it is not necessary.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan













Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals