From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy.  Was Re: The right-to-kill...
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: talk
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:39:55 GMT

Robert Black writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]
>jsve>We seem to only be disagreeing on the
>>"middle ground," if you'll permit me to call it that, for lack of a
>>better term, such as the right to life, etc.
>
>Yes I think this is where we disagree.  But that middle ground is very 
>important to those whose lives are dangling in the balance.  

Bob, sorry I've taken so long to reply to this.  Clearly hunters like
myself see the "lives dangling in the balance" as the lives of the
many animals that are saved as we strengthen the herds and increase
their size, whereas you AR folk see the "lives hanging in the balance"
as being merely the lives of the individuals that must be sacrificed
for the gain of the many others.  I'm not yet convinced that you AR
folk (not you specifically) have truly considered the "right to life"
and all that of these *other* animals.  I am fully supportive of
leaving certain areas wild (meaning no hunting or other human
intervention), but in the other areas, I still see hunting as doing
far more good than harm, as the "artificial predator," since mankind
has screwed up these small ecosystems.


[more stuff deleted]
>I think you have a subject-object confusion here.  The bear (or child)
>may lack a genuine comprehension of the consequences of its own actions,
>while still having a great appreciation of danger to itself.  In fact,
>it's far more likely that a sense of death is "understood" when one is
>an experiencing object toward which it is directed than when one is the
>subject who is inflicting it on another. 

I'm not sure I'm confused about this.  I'd sooner say I just disagree
with you.  The bear sees death every day (and I think it understands
what that is, as do other predators) whereas the child never sees
death except when old Wiley Coyote has a rock fall on his head in a
Roadrunner cartoon, and then reappears magically with a smile on his
face in the next scene.  So a child has no exposure to death.  A bear
does.


[more stuff deleted]
>My standard is proposing that you only do those actions whose projected 
>equivalent impact you yourself would be the willing recipient of.  If
>the cannibal would himself not want to be eaten (or be subjected to some
>equivalent effect) and understands what he's doing and has an choice,
>then he is wrong.  Period.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I would not ever want to be killed in a war, yet I would shoot the
enemy with the intent to kill.  So I will simply never fit your
standard, nor can I therefore advocate it.


>So many posters to this newsgroup have tried to duck this basic truth. 
>So many posters have take a position something like this: "I don't
>BELIEVE X is wrong, therefore it's not wrong FOR ME".  Bullcrap.  This
>type of sinister "logic" can be used to justify all sorts of atrocious
>behavior.  You can't just look at the conduct in question and decide if
>that conduct is okay with you.  That is where the true arbitrariness
>lies.  You must try to project the results of that conduct and determine
>whether you would want to be the recipient, not necessarily of that
>conduct itself but, of some conduct which would have an equivalent
>impact on you. 

At risk of being rude, do you mind if I ask whether or not you swat
misquitos that bite you?  It's an honest question, just to find out
whether your "do unto others" philosophy applies to all creatures or
just the ones the AR side calls "sentient."


[lots more stuff deleted]
>Note that my (a) through (h) criteria do not mention academic achievements 
>such as a PhD. 

True.


[more stuff deleted where we disagree about bears understanding death]
>
>jsve> I also don't consider taking the deer's life to be arbitrary,
>
>The death may not be arbitrary to you, but the deer disagrees, as
>evidenced by his avoidance-type behavior.

I'll agree that the deer thinks it's not a good thing, but I can't say
that the deer finds it "arbtrary."  I realize I'm being picky with the
terms.


>jsve> if 
>>the deer is eaten and if the herd (vs.  the individual) is strengthened 
>>by killing the deer.  Now I've said that I don't do any "sport" 
>>hunting, but admit that I feel it is OK for others to do so (so I 
>>condone their actions).  Such "sport" hunting is admittedly an 
>>arbitrary taking of the deer's life.  However, I find it difficult for 
>>me to argue the case, since I don't personally do so.  (Yeah, that's 
>>indeed a cop-out.  Let me think about it a little more.  :-) 
>
>Please do, and let me know what you come up with.

I've scratched my head quite a while on this one, and I'm not sure I
can find anything to justify it.  But let's make sure we agree on the
term "sport" hunting.  My definition is any time an animal is killed
and not used at all (except maybe for the picture taking), not simply
the case of someone shooting a trophy animal, if the meat, hide, etc.
is used later.


[more stuff deleted]
>Two final points:
>
>1.  Your standard calls for special consideration for all members of a
>genetic class on the grounds that this class is "superior" in some way. 
>My standard calls for special consideration for all those beings,
>independent of genetic class, to whom the consideration is important and
>relevant.  Do you really think that both standards are equally
>arbitrary?

Yes, although now that you've clarified some points, I can see how
*you* might think that it is less arbitrary, from your perspective.  I
hope that didn't come out wrong, I'm not saying you aren't right to
feel that way.  Just that it looks quite different from the two sides
of the fence.


>2.  Your views grant that animals have a right to not be subjected to
>cruelty without good reason, but that they do not have a right to live. 
>Does this really make sense? Isn't the right to life a prerequisite for
>the right to humane treatment?

You're kind of putting some words in my mouth here.  While I don't
feel they have the exclusive "right to life" that you AR folk think
they do, clearly they have a right to not be killed for no good
reason.  I don't recall ever saying that they should.  In fact, I
recall myself being pretty pro-environment and doing quite a bit to
save animals and their habitat. :-)  Of course, we disagree on what
good reasons are.  I think food for humans or experiments for humans
are both very good reasons.  That is the only place we disagree.  I'm
sure most hunters feel the same way, although there will always be a
few out there with t-shirts sporting that infamous Arnie-phrase from
the movie _Predator_, "If it bleeds, we can kill it." :-(


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals