From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:19:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <Bu1158.GuD@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> From article <Btx4xJ.92C@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> Ah yes!  I knew you'd get around to equating Blacks and animals.  
> cm> Never fails.  How IS David Duke by the way?  
> 
> As quoted from <Btxn5v.9st@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
> rl> I'm not equating blacks and animals.  I'm pointing out that 
> rl> existing laws and existing standards of social acceptability are 
> rl> not, in themselves, a valid determinant of ethical goodness or 
> rl> badness.   The fact that Dred Scott was the legal property of
> rl> his owner didn't mean that his enslavement was a "good" thing.
> 
> From article <Bu0v3I.1qq@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> The hell you aren't.  Your entire specious argument is based on 
> cm> accepting the premise of slaveholders and White supremacists.  
> cm> You cannot accept PART of the argument, it's all or nothing.  The 
> cm> two are inextricably bound together.  But I doubt that bothers 
> cm> you all that much anyway.  
> 
> Would you mind specifying the "premise" of slaveholders that you think
> I'm advocating?

You note endlessly that Whites did not consider Blacks human and therefore they
had no rights.  You then switch to a comparison between that and the treatment
of lobsters, caribou, or headlice depending upon what mood you're in.  This
"argument" inherently requires you to give credence to the views of White
supremacists, views which have been refuted for the better part of a century.
Inherent in all of this is an implicit acceptance of the proposition that 
Blacks aren't human.  This doesn't seem to bother you much.

> rl> Now please answer my questions:  Would you have agreed with Taney
> rl> that rights ought to be based on existing laws?  Or, would you have 
> rl> agreed with Rousseau that laws ought to be based on philosophical 
> rl> arguments?
> rl> 
> rl> I'm looking forward to a logical, non-circular response.
> 
> cm> No, you're looking for a response that countenances the belief 
> cm> that Blacks and non-human animals are equivalent moral agents.  I 
> cm> refuse to provide one.  
> 
> No, I'm not asking you to countenance such a notion.  Rather, I'm 

Really, then what do you call it when you expect somebody to argue from that
basic assumption?  I don't plan to do it.

> asking you if you agree or disagree with the archaic notion
> that the concept of rights should always be derived from existing 
> laws, rather than from philosophical arguments.  Would you have 
> agreed in principle with the illiberal position of Justice Taney?  
> Or, would you have agreed with JJ Rousseau's liberal view that 
> laws affecting rights ought to change in accordance with our 
> expanding vision of the truth?  

Your entire argument is a nonsequitor... unless you are willing to consider
the possibility that Blacks AREN'T human and therefore don't have the rights
which inhere in humanity.  Hey, it's YOUR argument, why do you keep running
away from it when I put it in its proper perspective?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals