From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:13:08 GMT

In article <C1G6oJ.HLx@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan25.192338.24880@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> To use one of your favorite examples: slavery was undeniably
>> "ethically correct" for the majority of plantation owners in
>> the 18th and 19th centuries, but the premise on which it was
>> based, that Africans were less intelligent, was clearly in 
>> error.
>
>The opinion that slavery was good was, indeed, widespread in
>the 18th century, and it was also widely believed in those
>days that mental depressions were caused by an overabundance
>of black bile.   However, it's important to make a distinction 
>between beliefs and truths.  In reality, slavery was not a good
>thing in the 18th century, and mental depression had nothing 
>whatsoever to do with "black bile".

	I think we're agreed here: "ethical acceptability" often has 
	nothing to do with "truth."

>> Your problem is that you insist upon equating "Truth" with 
>> "Ethically Acceptable," and they are not the same thing at all.
>
>Not exactly.  Let's clarify a few points:
>
>First, truth is an ethical good in the realm of ideas, just
>as pleasure is an ethical good in the realm of feelings.  By
>contrast, falsity and pain are "bad".

	And I thought we were getting somewhere...I should have known
	better.  Your examples of "truth" and "pleasure" are patently
	false as stated: neither is necessarily a determining factor
	in whether an action is "ethically correct" in a society.  They
	may be determining factors for YOU, but you're not a "society."

>Second, I wholeheartedly agree that an idea isn't truthful
>simply because it's believed.
>
>Again, where we appear to disagree is that you seem to think that 
>ethical ideas ought to be accepted as valid, simply because 
>they're widely accepted by others, ...

	Good thing you used the phrase "...SEEM to think."  Especially
	since you've gotten my position wrong yet again.  If I thought
	that all ideas considered ethical should be accepted as valid, I'd
	still believe that human slavery is a good idea, and trust me: I do 
	not.  It is, however, a fact of life that it is societal consensus
	which determines what is "ethically acceptable."  There are a
	great many things which I acknowledge to be "ethically acceptable"
	but which I consider to be based on false data or self-serving
	rationalization.  The continued manufacture and sale of DDT to
	third world countries is but one example.

>>>>Your persistent efforts are, perhaps, commendable to some, but the
>>>>fact remains that, in our society, killing animals for food is
>>>>ethically acceptable, however emotionally disturbing you might
>>>>find the practice.
>>>
>>>It doesn't emotionally disturb me in the least.  I do, however,
>>>think that it reflects a practice that will someday be regarded
>>>as incredibly careless and stupid.
>> 
>> Perhaps.  The fact remains that, today, such practices are
>> considered ethically acceptable by the society in which we
>> live.  
>
>So what?   The society in which we live accepts quite a few ideas 
>that you would surely dismiss as mere superstition or ignorance.  
>Don't you think it's hypocritical to criticize popular opinion
>when it suits your pleasure (as you often do in sci.med) yet turn
>around and invoke popular opinion when it suits your own prejudices
>and superstitions?

	First, I don't do ANYTHING "often" in sci.med, and I don't recall
	any criticism of "popular opinion" in that forum.  Second, increasing
	the level of vitriol in your accusations won't increase their
	verity.  Third, I'm not "invoking popular opinion" with my
	arguments here.  I'm merely stating the obvious: "ethical accep-
	tability" in a society is determined by consensus, not by truth.

>> Your claim that you remain emotionally unmoved by
>> these practices is categorically refuted by your past postings.
>
>Do you really think you can determine the involvement of my 
>emotions in a particular issue by reading my prose?  Let's 
>assume, just for the sake of argument, that I'm an overly 
>emotional man whereas you're calm and collected.

	A strawman, since I've never said either of those things.

>Given such an 
>assumption, how do you account for the fact that you often 
>describe me using perjorative labels like "flaming idiot" or 
>"ignorant fool" or whatever, whereas I typically refrain from such 
>practices?  [except where Banta's concerned, of course]

	It's still "pejorative," with only one "r", just like it was
	the last time.  Given that your "assumption" is a strawman,
	why should I bother to dignify it with more of an answer than
	this?

>> Your avowed "concern" (remember that word?) for the welfare
>> of research animals is but one example.
>
>You mentioned this previously, and I replied that a writer's use 
>of the word "concern" doesn't necessarily reflect an emotional 
>state.  The fact that you would assume otherwise suggests that
>you, yourself, are highly emotional, and hence, incapable of
>appreciating the possibility of purely "intellectual" concerns.

	Another strawman.  And this one is based on the Janus-like assertion
	that the definition of a word when used by a writer is somehow
	different from that which is printed in a dictionary of the
	language.

>In raising questions about our treatment of animals, I point to 
>facts and reasons...  not to my own "feelings".

	No you don't.  You point to being "concerned." [Look it up.]

>In truth, it's 
>you, rather than me, who believes that feelings like guilt or 
>pleasure always form the basis of ethical judgments.

	In truth, THIS assertion is ALSO wrong...and you have already
	been corrected on it at least once before.  Shall I post the
	exchange, or will you take my word for it?

>> Perhaps you need a few MORE trips around
>> the proverbial block, so that you can separate feeling from 
>> thought.
>
>You're attacking a straw man, Rich.  I'm going to continue presenting
>facts and reasons to support my side of the argument.  If you choose
>to pretend that my arguments are emotional, rather than intellectual,
>it's fine with me.  

	And yet ANOTHER strawman!  It's not your arguments that I claim are
	emotional, it's the fact that you consider societal "ethical
	acceptability" to be tied up in your own personal evaluations
	of "good" and "bad."  You need to learn that your dislike of
	something forms a basis for nothing except your opinion.  I
	cannot claim that you are doing something "unethical" simply because
	I consider it to be so.  What you're doing may well be cruel, or
	stupid, or even illogical, but whether or not it is judged to
	be unethical by the society in which you live is dependent upon
	the consensus of that society.


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