From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research (repost)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:26:26 GMT


[This is a repost]

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It seems clear that any animal that lives within a social 
rl> organization must be capable, either through instinct or learned 
rl> behavior, to recognize the rules of conduct that are applicable 
rl> within the society in which they live.  Do such rules constitute 
rl> "rights" as I normally use the term?  Not really.  Nevertheless, 
rl> they do represent a kind of moral order.  

From article <1992Nov18.195621.4607@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> The behavior that your dogs are showing is not some sort of 
gp> "moral order".  It is refered to as a peck order.  Morals have 
gp> nothing to do with it.  The dogs do not consider an action (say 
gp> to take something from the other dog) as morally right or wrong 
gp> What they are considering is whether they will be physically 
gp> chastized by the other for their actions.  

How do you account for the fact that this "right" appears to be
respected by the large dogs as well as the small dogs in a given 
pack?   

gp> In other words I'm not going to do that because I'll get my ass 
gp> kicked.  Don't bring morals into this.  

Many of the religious "rights" that you take for granted took 
shape in the late 17th century, in the wake of the Thirty Years 
War in europe...  a war that "kicked the butts", as you might 
say, of protestants and catholics alike.  To the extent that we 
humans have learned to respect religious rights because of the 
pain that we've inflicted or experienced in armed conflicts, 
would this diminish our respect for rights in some way?  

gp> Are you suggesting animals can make conscious moral decisions? 

I'm suggesting that some animals are conscious.  My views on the 
moral decision-making of those animals would depend on some 
undecided definitions that you and I are still attempting to 
formulate.  

rl> Let's not forget that humans are animals.  As much as we'd like
rl> to think that we resemble the gods, the truth of the matter is
rl> that Washoe the Chimp and I are half-brothers on the tree of
rl> animal life, just as you and I are identical twins.  While dogs
rl> and cows and rats may be more distant relatives, they are 
rl> relatives nonetheless.  

gp> Russell, twice you have used the "Humans are animals." argument 
gp> to suggest that human rights should be granted to animals.  But, 
gp> animals are not human.  

Whoa.  I stated that human rights are a subset of animal rights, 
as demonstrated by the obvious fact that humans are animals.   You've
jumped to some conclusions, Greg.

gp> Humans are animals.
gp> Humans have rights.
gp> Hence, all animals have rights.

I don't agree with this argument.  I think rights should be based
on thinking and feeling abilities.  Genetic arguments and
genetic classifications don't carry much weight, imho.  Nor should
rights be based on historical custom as you seem inclined to do.

rl> My observations of [animals] have reconfirmed, over and over again, 
rl> the notion that the mental differences between my four legged friends 
rl> and by two legged friends are a matter of degree, rather than a 
rl> matter of kind.  

gp> No.  It is a difference of kind and not degree.  Can you claim 
gp> that animals know the difference between right and wrong on a 
gp> moral bases?  

Can you claim that catholic heretic-burners and protestant witch-burners
understood your moral arguments re: torture?  

If not, perhaps you should admit that our respect for the thoughts and
feelings of other beings (as well as codes of conduct) often stems
from learned behavior.  My dog pals apparently endorse an unwritten,
but nonetheless learned, set of rules and regulations.  Is that much
different from the rules that you've apparently learned re: the
wrongfulness of torture?

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