From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Vegitarianism
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:07:56 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan21.184859.3220@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>[reply to cash@convex.com]

>>Why should we think that an argument is _required_ to prohibit murder,
>>or that a criterion must be found that confers a right to live?  Where
>>did we get the idea that philosophy ought to give us _reasons_ for the
>>simplest things?

>I agree that morals are relative.  

But I didn't say that. I just expressed doubt that philosophy can provide
(or ought to provide) a foundation for morals. Why would you think that
this means "morals are relative"? 

>Murder is wrong because we all (or
>most of us, at least) agree that it is wrong.  

What kind of statement is this? "Murder is wrong"? At the very least, it's
a peculiar thing to say. Indeed, this is a highly redundant--even
tautologically empty statement, and I'm not at all sure of what to say
about it. Perhaps you would be less inclined to say puzzling things about
moral matters if you didn't consider such odd statements to be paradigms of
moral judgment.

Suppose we're at a trial. A policeman is being tried for shooting a
prisoner in his custody--under suspicious circumstances. The policeman
claims that the prisoner had produced a gun, and that he was acting in
self-defense.  A witness takes the stand. "I saw it all," he says. "The cop
just shot the handcuffed guy down for no apparent reason. Then he took that
little automatic out of his pocket and threw it down next to the dead guy.
It was _murder_--there's no other word for it." During subsequent
testimony, it's shown that the policeman was corrupt, and that the prisoner
had threatened to expose him.

Now, assuming that the facts are as presented, are you going to ask if
shooting down a helpless prisoner is wrong?  Are you going to speculate
that it's "relative" because there might be cultures in which the officer's
conduct was praiseworthy? Somehow, I think the temptation to talk this way
would not exist--unlike the case where you sit at your desk and mutter to
yourself, "murder is wrong". --Still, philosophers say the damndest things,
so I wouldn't be surprised if one could be found who would say shooting a
prisoner under such circumstances is only reprehensible "by convention".

Moreover, one doesn't need a _justification_ for saying the cop did
wrong--other than the facts of the case.

>My problem is that if I
>start from the premises that it is immoral to kill a human, even a
>mentally retarded one, and that there is no abrupt discontinuity between
>the consciousness of humans and higher mammals (as supported by primate
>research), then I can't see a way to continue to be a carnivore without
>being morally inconsistent.  

What has your premise that "it is immoral to kill a human" got to do with
"consciousness", anyway? 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~