From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:05:46 GMT

Greg Popken writes:
gp> Russell let's stick to the issue shall we.  If you want to 
gp> talk ethics of the death penalty take it somewhere else.  You 
gp> believe animals have rights...  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> The issue is your concept of ethical absolutism and how you think
rl> it ought to apply to people like myself who don't share your views.
rl>
rl> Yes, I believe that both human and non-human animals should have 
rl> some rights, but it seems kinda farfetched to argue that rights 
rl> are somehow absolute in scope.

From article <1992Nov11.160526.19484@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> No its not far fetched.  You claim animals have rights.  But, 
gp> only in some circumstances.  I see this as inconsistant.  How can 
gp> you claim animals have the right not to be used in research, for 
gp> our coats,or entertainment?  And then claim that they don't have 
gp> rights when it comes to leather shoes and food.  All are 
gp> instances of exploiting animals for "personal "reasons.  Where do 
gp> you draw the line.  

I try to respect the thoughts and feelings of _all_ beings (both 
human and non-human) in _all_ instances.  And, I contend that 
it's "not good" when we overlook their thoughts and feelings in 
order to better our own ends.  However, I realize that some 
ethical choices involve, not simply a choice between a good 
outcome and a bad outcomes, but a choice between two bad 
outcomes.  

Illustrations: Is it worse for a man to starve to death rather than 
killing a deer?  Is it worse for a man to freeze to death rather 
than using the skins of animals as clothing?  Is it worse for us 
to use rats to find a cure for aids rather than allowing millions 
of individuals to die from the disease?  

I'm not sure that I know the answers to these questions, but I'm
willing to accept the notion that animal (mis)use might be 
reasonable in such cases.

Now let's look at another set of examples: Is it worse for a man 
to eat beans and rice, rather than a fat-laden steak?  Is it 
worse for a man to wear a cloth coat, rather than a stylish mink 
coat?  Is it worse to forego a new kind of eye shadow, rather than 
subject rabbits to draize testing?  

Whereas there may be something "bad" in starving to death or 
freezing to death or allowing individuals to die from aids, 
there's nothing really bad about the consumption of beans and 
rice, the wearing of cloth coats, or the loss of new kinds of eye 
shadow.  

gp> Again I'll use the example of the woman who offerred the man $1,000,000 to
gp> have sex with her. (roles changed this time as not to appear sexist.) The
gp> man excepts. The woman offers $5 dollars for the same services.  He
gp> replies "What kind of man do you think I am?"  To which she replies,
gp> "we've already established that.  We're just bartering price now."
gp> I posted this earlier but was out of town afterwards and did not see the
gp> replies.  Please forgive the redundance.) 

Your analogy seems simplistic to me.  It might be more 
relevant if the "prostitute" were seeking a million dollars to 
fund a program for feeding hungry kids.  In such a case, would 
prostitution be worse than the starvation of many thousands of human 
beings?

rl> Now please answer my previous 
rl> question: Is it always wrong to kill human beings?  Or, should we 
rl> entertain exceptions in cases involving self-defense, medical 
rl> treatment, criminal punishment, punishment for religious heresy, 
rl> etc?  

gp>  Not if the killing is justified.  (I'm ahead of you on this). Justified
gp>  based on the norms and rules of society.

What you're saying is that it's ok to engage in an action if you 
believe that it's ok, but your argument is circular (ie you're
begging the question).  If you're willing to accept the notion 
that it's ok to kill human beings in certain instances, but not 
in others, it seems kinda hypocritical for you to accuse me of 
wavering simply because complications may alter my judgment of a
particular action.  

gp> Animals have no rights!  

rl> Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?

gp> No.  But we don't have the right to intentional infic pain on 
gp> them without justification.

How does this differ from a "right"?   Would "justification" make
it acceptable for you to kill a human being?   And, if so, would
this mean that human beings do not have rights?

gp> Rights are a human contraption and should only be applied to humans.

rl> Why?

gp> Why should we impose or beliefs on other speies?

This seems twisted.  You have no qualms about appropriating the
minds and bodies of non-human animals if it suits your convenience.
Yet, when animal-rights advocates seek to temper *your* impositions,
you pretend that we're imposing our beliefs on non-human animals.
In truth, human laws that prevent would humans from torturing dogs 
and cats constrain human behavior, not the behavior of dogs and cats.

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