From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:31:32 GMT

In <1993Jan8.215814.24736@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In <1993Jan6.044818.24294@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan5.220804.26280@clpd.kodak.com>, Bob Black writes:
>>>In <1992Dec31.010816.26470@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>>>In <1992Dec30.193924.21805@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>I don't know when the linkage dissolves.  It currently is beyond the
>>>>>scope of my ability to determine.  But that doesn't matter.  We can see
>>>>>many obvious cases where it does not dissolve.  And there's enough
>>>>>debate about those cases to last us all for a while. 
>>>>
>>>>      How conveniently fuzzy.  Of course, it DOES allow us to kill roaches
>>>>      with abandon while rushing to the defense of mice.
>>>
>>>Many of us would undoubtedly prefer that the world confront us with more
>>>black-and-white situations instead of fuzzy ones.  In any event, the
>>>occurrence of fuzziness is not a matter of "convenience" but an inherent
>>>feature of the world in which we find ourselves.
>> 
>>         [NOTE: the "you" in the following paragraphs is generic.]
>> 
>>         Perhaps, but it's not necessary, or even desirable, in this area.
>
>It appears unavoidable to me, given the current state of our knowledge.

   It's not the state of our knowledge that makes it unavoidable for you: I'd
   wager that I don't know any more about it than you do, but I have no such
   fuzziness in my ethical system.

>>         The fuzziness of thought so often in evidence by the claimants of
>>         the ethically vegetarian high ground is troubling.  How do you know
>>         what's an ethically acceptable meal if you can't even describe the
>>         process by which you assign ethical value to non-human species?  You
>>         engage in the ludicrously struthious practice of limiting your 
>>         ethical guessing game to the extreme ends of the scale of evolu-
>>         tionary complexity while leaving the huge majority of species with
>>         which we share the planet in a kind of ethical limbo ...
>
>That seems like an odd way to put it.  More accurately, we deal with the
>easier, more obvious cases first and work from there.  It's not unlike
>the common approach of partitioning a large complex problem into more
>manageable sized pieces.  We're still working our way through the myriad
>individual pieces.  This is actually the antithesis of the far more
>common struthious abdication of responsibility.

   And I suppose that it's an "abdication of responsibility" if it doesn't
   follow your holy writ, correct?  Why not simply appreciate every living
   thing for the wonder that it is, recognize, or more importantly: accept,
   that death supports your life, and the death of one non-human living
   thing for this purpose is no more heinous than the death of another.
   All non-human species are then equally relevant by definition and there
   is no fuzziness at all.

>>	  and claiming
>>         not only that you are "right," but that those who disagree are
>>         "wrong" on some nebulous "absolute" scale of your own creation.
>
>The intent is to apply, where relevant and to the extent possible, the
>criterion that humans have demonstated they wish to have applied to
>themselves. 

   That this is patently impossible is acknowledged by your use of the
   phrase, "...to the extent possible."  And why do you hedge by saying,
   "where relevant?"

   You must eat.  Therefore, you must either kill or have someone or some-
   thing do it for you.  You cannot treat all non-human species by the
   same criteria that you wish applied to you, and if you try, they will
   not return the favor.  Why do you rail at the impossible rather than
   accept the peace of what IS?  To what purpose do you press these quixotic
   ideas upon us?

>>         You claim that these choices are not arbitrary, yet you supply us
>>         with no evidence to dispute that claim, retreating, instead, to the
>>         safety of your own opinions, which, by definition, are most
>>         definitely arbitrary.  You claim that humans are no "better" than
>>         any other animal, yet you presume, as a human, to determine which
>>         non-human species are ethically relevant and which are not...and
>>         not only for yourself, but even for those around you who choose
>>         to disagree.
>
>This sounds like a stawman.

   I said the "you" was generic.  Besides, did you not just tell me a few
   short paragraphs ago that, "We're still working our way through the myriad
   individual pieces," in reference to the difficulty of ethical classifi-
   cation?  And do you not press me to adopt your goals as my own in this
   matter?

[...]

>Re: waffling and lack of information.  We probably never will have
>*enough* information.  We work with what's available.  Isn't the
>alternative to simply throw up our collective arms in surrender and
>let indecision drive us into total inaction?

   No.

>If we never make a
>decision or take a position until we have ALL the relevant information,
>then we'll never do anything at all.  You could starve while awaiting
>the complete answer, .....

   Or you could regard the answer as fundamentally irrelevant and stop
   wasting the effort expended to find it.

>....yet the partial answer is available to keep 
>you (generic) going while we (collective) chip away at the entire
>solution.

   Or perhaps we could expend the same energy wasted in denial of our basic
   relationship to other species on efforts to control ourselves so that
   we don't overrun the planet.  Just a thought.

>>>Now my turn to inquire about three lifeforms:  What are the ethics
>>>surrounding consumption of other humans, of monkeys, and of domestic
>>>cats?
>> 
>>         I suppose you really expect me to answer this, even after the
>>         waffle you served up.
>> 
>>         Cannibalism on a large scale is maladaptive behavior for any
>>         species.  
>
>Only depending on the extent and way it's practiced.  Cannibalism could
>strengthen the species by weeding out weaker individuals while at the
>same time providing sustenance for the stronger ones.  The effect could
>be somewhat like that claimed on behalf of hunters for hunting/predation
>activities directed toward other species.  Cannibalism properly
>practiced could strengthen the species and thus be very adaptive.  (No
>I'm advocating this as policy.)

   I'll assume you meant "not advocating."  Cannibalism is maladaptive
   behavior and is unlikely to serve the purpose you describe.  Let's just
   explore one reason: if you eat a diseased human, you will likely be
   infected with the same organism which infected your lunch...it did, 
   after all, evolve as a human pathogen.  In fact, there is at least
   one documented example of a society in which this occurred: a neuro-
   degenerative disease called "kuru" was found to be transmitted by the
   practice of ritual cannibalism of the dead by the Fore tribe in New
   Guinea.  [rms:tnx]

>Also why are you introducing maladaptive behavior into a discussion
>of ethics?  Is it the case that species adaptivity is to be the
>ethical test for behavior?  Is adaptive behavior ethical and maladaptive
>behavior unethical?

   YOU'RE the one who first mentioned cannibalism, not me.

[...]

>>         Monkeys and cats are up for grabs...unless, of course, you're
>>         limiting your discussion to the Western society in which we live.
>
>If a group of entrepreneurs publicized its intention to establish a new 
>venture in your community that would raise monkeys and cats for human
>consumption, what would your reaction be?

   I, personally, wouldn't object to their enterprise any more than I object
   to the idea of slaughterhouses for cattle; on the other hand, I wouldn't
   patronize their shop, either.  I don't eat cats and monkeys any more than
   I eat beetles and slugs, but that's merely a cultural bias.  If I had
   been born into another society, I might feel differently.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals