From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:08:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.010816.26470@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.193924.21805@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>>**    Now, just how different ARE plants from animals?

[...]

>>Can you see how easily this could be interpreted as an invitation to a
>>discussion about whether animals and plants should be relegated to
>>similar ethical categories?
>
>	No, I can't easily see how this could be interpreted as such an
>	invitation.  The statement clearly asks about the similarity between
>	plants and animals, not about whether there is any ethical relevance
>	attached to either of them.  Someone made a statement that plants
>	and animals are not similar; I merely offered some preliminary
>	evidence to show that the dissimilarities so often claimed may not
>	be as wide as it might seem at first glance.

The question stood out like a red flag waved in front of a bull.  But
perhaps that's because I missed the start of the thread. 

[...]

>>>	That said, I ask again: at what point does the linkage dissolve, and
>>>	how is this determination made?  What about garden slugs and amoebae?
>>
>>I don't know when the linkage dissolves.  It currently is beyond the
>>scope of my ability to determine.  But that doesn't matter.  We can see
>>many obvious cases where it does not dissolve.  And there's enough
>>debate about those cases to last us all for a while. 
>
>	How conveniently fuzzy.  Of course, it DOES allow us to kill roaches
>	with abandon while rushing to the defense of mice.

Many of us would undoubtedly prefer that the world confront us with more
black-and-white situations instead of fuzzy ones.  In any event, the
occurrence of fuzziness is not a matter of "convenience" but an inherent
feature of the world in which we find ourselves.

>
>[...]
>
>>So it's my impression that you wish to restrict your participation to
>>the domain of scientific data and prefer not to take a position on any
>>ethical implications of that data?  You are content to discuss the
>>obvious truth that people DO eat dead plants and animals without further
>>inquiry?
>
>	That WAS my intent when I posted the original excerpt from the
>	study.  If you want to discuss the ethics of vegetarianism vs.
>	omnivory, then first tell me this: what are the ethics surrounding
>	my consumption of garden slugs, beetles, and amoebae?

Since the extent to which these three lifeforms can be
subjects-of-a-life with a capacity to experience suffering and
deprivation is less than many other lifeforms, then it makes sense to
conclude that they merit lesser ethical consideration and are therefore
more suitable objects of prandial undertakings.  So eat hearty and feel
at peace to continue unabated your consumption of them. 

Now my turn to inquire about three lifeforms:  What are the ethics
surrounding consumption of other humans, of monkeys, and of domestic
cats?

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals