From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:33:43 GMT

In article <BxsJDy.E7t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Do you agree with me that the badness of torture depends on the 
>rl> victim's ability to feel pain, rather than her ability to develop 
>rl> and/or communicate conceptions of pain?  If so, please explain 
>rl> why it might be "bad" to torture a woman, but "not bad" to 
>rl> torture a female chimpanzee.  
>
>From article <1992Nov16.013238.23471@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>gp> Again no the falt in your actions is that by tortureing a person
>gp> you are infringing on their rights.  
>
>Without invoking a circular argument (ie "torture is wrong 
>because torture is wrong"), please explain why you think humans 
>ought to have a right not to be tortured.  

the act of torturing someone is immoral and unjust because by torturing
that persons you are infringing on the persons right to any number of
things: a trial by jury, do process, etc are legal rights that are being
violated.  Moral rights that are being violated include the right to being
treated fairly, kindly, humanely etc....
>
>BTW, in a separate posting, you and I wrote:
>
>======================================================================
>gp> Rights are a human contraption and should only be applied to 
>gp> humans.
>
>rl> Why?
>
>gp> Russell, i hope you will agree with me on this definition of a 
>gp> right (if not please find a dictionary.  
>gp> 
>gp> A right is a claim or potential claim that one party may exercise 
>gp> on another, based on laws and/or tradition.  
>======================================================================
>
>Let's test your definition with a real-life, historical example:
>
>During the inquisition and counter-revolution, various european 
>secular authorities (under church supervision) tortured millions 
>of heretics in accordance with legal precedents established by 
>roman law.  Would you say that the heretics had no rights...  
>given the definition you've provided above?  

Based on my defination above yes the heritics did have rights, because
they were human and capable of claiming their right not to be
tortured.  The church however, ignored and violated their rights.
Just as today in South Africa many blacks rights are being violated.
Are you suggesting that because the powers that be refuse to recognize an
individuals rights they are not intitled to them. Or perhaps you believe I
am suggesting that?
My arguement is that animals are not capable of claiming or accepting the
responsibilities associated with right.  Hence they cannot be granted
rights.
>
>Now let's go back to the previous round of dialog:
>======================================================================
>rl> Do you agree with me that the badness of torture depends on the 
>rl> victim's ability to feel pain, rather than her ability to develop 
>rl> and/or communicate conceptions of pain?  If so, please explain 
>rl> why it might be "bad" to torture a woman, but "not bad" to 
>rl> torture a female chimpanzee.  
>
>gp> Again no the falt in your actions is that by tortureing a person
>gp> you are infringing on their rights.  
>======================================================================
>
>In view of the fact that the heretics did not have a right not to
>be tortured, would this mean that there was nothing "bad" about
>their painful treatment?

Russell, please don't attempt to read my mind and answer questions for me.  If you do not think the
heritics had the right to be tortured than it is another inconsistance in
your arguements .

I have two questions for you Russell.

Do you eat or wear any animal products?


If so how can you justify this based on your animal rights philosophy?


One other question?  Will you please send me some information regarding
the cat shooting study?  A name . A date. A research institution.
Anything. I'm will to go to the library and do the leg work to find
references but I need a starting point.  This is my third request.

						Greg Popken 



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


The opinions expressed here are my own.   **  Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.        **  Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,   **  end of the page.
are mine.                                 ******************************

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************