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: Mon, 28 Dec 92 23:28:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.181051.9112@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.013124.4246@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.180401.27092@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Dec18.142408.19094@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>
>For context, here is my previous statement:
>
>  "If you really believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity
>   to be assigned a rough moral equivalence, how do you propose to redress
>   the current imbalance which favors animals? ..."
>
>>
>>>>	You must be taking lessons from Russell...he makes unjustified
>>>>	assumptions, too.  ...
>>>
>>>The only assumption is the implied one in the "If" clause of the first
>>>sentence.
>>
>>	Is there some number of assumptions required before any can be called
>>	"unjustified?"
>
>1 [One]

	Then it was not grammatically incorrect to call your assumption
	"unjustified," was it?

>>>By saying that it's unjustified, you're aligning yourself
>>>with those who deny a rough moral equivalence between animals and
>>>plants.   [...]
>>
>>	No, I'm not making any moral statements at all.  I'm merely saying
>>	that dismissal of plants (and "lower" animals) as physiologically
>>	"inferior" may be a bit hasty, based on the tidbits of knowledge we
>>	have to date.
>
>My implied assumption was this: 
>
>	You believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity 
>	to be assigned a rough moral equivalence.
>
>You've now pronounced this assumption to be "unjustified."  This seems
>to imply that either (1) you believe animals and plants don't have said
>similarity, or (2) you plead ignorance about whether or not they do. 

	Your assumption is unjustified because I have said nothing about
	any morality which might surround the consumption of plants for
	food.  As I said before, my purpose in posting the excerpt from the
	study was to show that there may be more similarities between
	plants and animals than might be immediately apparent.

[...]

>>>>>You seem to be equating "unfeeling" with "ethically irrelevant."  Is this
>>>>>an accurate inference?  IYO then does "feeling" equate to "ethically
>>>>>relevant?"
>>>>
>>>>	No, AR advocates and "ethical" vegetarians have equated "unfeeling"
>>>>	with "ethically irrelevant."  I've merely restated this claim, and
>>>>	offered some evidence which shows that plants may not be as far
>>>>	removed from animals as those groups would like to believe, and
>>>>	that plants are not "unfeeling."  Since you are certainly a member
>>>>	of the first group, if not the second, I ask YOU, "Does 'feeling'
>>>>	equate to 'ethically relevant?'"
>>>
>>>"Equate" may be too strong a word to characterize the relationship. 
>>>"Linkage" might be better. 
>>
>>	Why the ambivalence?  And how does it "unlink" when you get to
>>	garden slugs and amoebas?
>
>The ambivalence stems from potential exploitation of ambiguity in the
>term 'feeling.' There seems to be a linkage between one's ability to
>suffer and one's worthiness of being an object of 'ethically relevant'
>treatment.  The greater the ability, the tighter the linkage. 

	First, let me point out that "pain" and "suffering" are not equi-
	valent terms.  As Martin, I think, pointed out, "pain" certainly
	does result in "suffering," but all "suffering" is not "pain."

	That said, I ask again: at what point does the linkage dissolve, and
	how is this determination made?  What about garden slugs and amoebae?

[...]

>>	You asked, in essence, "Aren't non-human and human animals
>>	sufficiently similar that we should be somewhat concerned with
>>	their welfare?"  You asked nothing about plants; I answered in
>>	the affirmative.  There is nothing mysterious and misleading
>>	about that.
>
>Actually I was asking a little more than that.  I was looking for an
>acknowledgement that stronger ethical claims can be made on behalf of
>animals than on behalf of plants.

	Of course you were.  You've already decided in the affirmative and
	would like to have me agree.  Unfortunately, I'm dealing with data
	from a reviewed study, not ethics, in this thread.  It is YOU who
	brought up the ethics issue.  I eat dead plants; I eat dead animals.
	Make of that what you will, but do not make more of it than is there.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)