From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Moral Judgements
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:30:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Aug20.175556.19580@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

I'm new to this thread, but would like to add some questions/comments if 
you don't mind.  
                   - Jeff Achenbach

>
>Great.  But there are only three defenses of animal killing which I have
>found convincing in all the verbiage that has been posted on the
>subject: (1) self-defense or defense of another; (2) subsistence; (3)
>It's the most humane way or the only practical way to control
>populations (with the stipulation that we will always be looking to find
>a better way).  
>

Why the distinction of subsistence? If vegetables are good enough for me, 
they're good enough for aborigines. If you're going to claim killing and 
eating animals is wrong, why the inconsistency? 

>>
>>*Secondly, your analogy falls apart because, the right that you're
>>*claiming involves a third party.  Consider the case of a cannibal who
>>*recognizes your right to abstain from eating human flesh.  All he asks
>>*of you is to recognize his right to decide this issue for himself and
>>*live according to his own beliefs.  What about a man who likes to beat
>>*women? He recognizes your right not to do it and only asks that you
>>*recognize his right to decide for himself?  Isn't it clear that when you
>>*introduce a third party (i.e. a victim), the rules change?
>>

I believe most human rights have evolved as a societal survival mechanism.
If you'd like me to expand on this I'll be glad to, but I don't want to barge
in and use up a bunch of bandwidth.

>>
>>Among the tactics advocated are "Plaster the floors of hunting blinds 
>>with cow dung, rotten eggs, or other unpleasant substances.  Tear down 
>>tree stands."
>
>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?
>

I would say they are acting quite illegally.

>>  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."  
>
>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.
>

How do you feel about right-to-lifers activities at abortion clinics? Does
their "moral purity" make their actions defensible?

>You may say that these people are misguided (by preventing deaths
>now, you may say, they are causing more suffering and worse deaths
>later).  But as long as they are not harassing or threatening hunters
>and as long as they are not trespassing, then why wouldn't they have 
>the same right to be there as a hunter would?
>

They have the same right to be there. They don't have the right to interfere
with someone else's legal activity, which is their sole reason for being there.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals