From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:51:10 GMT

From article <1993Jan5.175806.2000@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>>> Well, now you know that there are intances when I find animal use unethical.
>>> BTW, what happened to *misuse*?
>>
>>No, I don't know that there are instances in which you would consider
>>animal (mis)use to be unethical.   For example, would you say that it's 
>>unethical to:
>>
>>--- kill four dozen mink to make a fur coat for a socialite in Miami?
>>--- kill animals for amusement and "sport"?
>>--- kill animals for food when non-sentient food sources are both plentiful
>>    and far less costly in terms of human resources?
>
> ...
> If this were an ideal world I wouldn't use lab animals at all.  

You've stated this previously, but the question that keeps running
through my mind is this:  If this were an ideal world, would you
view the use of lab animals as unethical?    Or, would you say that
the use of lab animals would merely be "distasteful" in such a case, as 
you suggest in the passage below where you address the use of fur coats
in Miami?

> I do not view the use of animals for food or consumer
> products as unethical, as long as they are not subject to unnecessary or
> inordinate suffering in the process. I see hunting, for nothing more than
> the sport of it,  as distastefull. As I find fur coats, vain and distastefull.

You apparently find such uses to be "distasteful" but not 
ethically wrong...  provided that the animals are not subject to 
"unnecessary" pain.  If I'm mistaken, why don't you simply say that
you regard the production of fur coats to be unethical?

Are the thoughts and feelings of non-human animals ethically 
weightless when they're "necessary" to accomplish a particular 
human purpose, but ethically weighty when they're unnecessary?  

> I view the abusive, unnecessary, cruel, infliction of pain on animals as
> unethical.  

The problem with your judgment is that it seems to be predicated 
entirely on the personality of the perpetrator, with no regard 
whatsoever for the "goodness" or "badness" perceived by the animals 
involved.  Hence, it would be "bad" for a sadist to trap and kill forty 
foxes just for the hell of it...  not because the animals feel pain or 
lose members of their families or have their lives prematurely ended, 
but because the sadist has "needs" that you don't personally endorse.  

On the other hand, it would be ethically "good" (albeit 
distasteful) for a miami socialite to enter a contractual 
relationship requiring the killing of forty foxes, not because 
the foxes enjoy being trapped and killed, but because the 
socialite "needs" to have a fur coat in order to create the aura 
of glamor that will impress her friends and acquaintances.  

> ...
>>
>>I'm sure that Mr. Hoskins wasn't trying to offend you if he
>>misquoted you here.  To the contrary, I think he was hoping
>>to defend your position.
> 
> James niether offended me or misquoted me.
> But the post mentions nothing about our discussion of torture and the
> ethics involved.Would you please explain to me how this topic is involved
> in the present discussion?

I thought I made that clear in my previous postings.  It seems to
me that your determination of "good" and "bad" is based entirely
on your ethical norms, with no regard whatsoever for the available
facts.  This raises questions about your ability to carefully
weigh the "lesser of the evils" since a "ton" of animal pain would
apparently be offset by a mere "ounce" of vain "necessity".

In view of the fact that you apparently don't see anything ethically
wrong with miami socialites who "need" to wear fur coats, I'm truly
skeptical of your claim that the use of animals in your lab is
a "necessity".

> ...
>> Frankly, you've given me the distinct 
>>impression that you don't see anything wrong at all with using 
>>animals, provided that the uses fit within the normative 
>>guidelines established by your prior conventions.  
> 
> What's your point, Russell. I could make the same statement about any
> number of non-absolutionist AR advocates here.

I can't speak for other AR activists, but I prefer to base my judgments
of "good" and "bad" on the facts and arguments, rather than appealing to
conventions.  To give you an example, I'd say that torture is wrong
because it hurts... not because it violates a law.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals