From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Question for Ted
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:05:10 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Nov20.182226.12230@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

> Ted, sometimes Martin comes up with a few interesting questions
> buried at the bottom of the 20th scrolled screen of quadruple
> attributed text.  Did you miss this one?

Was this aimed at Ted Altar or me? Either way, I'll take a crack at it. And 
yes, I missed it.  
 
> The problem with the animal "rights" movement is that they try to have it
> both ways.  They claim that we shouldn't exploit animals because they are
> "like us" (e.g., Ingrid's rat=pig=dog=boy argument), but simultaneously
> argue that we should be "different" (i.e., don't prey upon other *animal*
> species) when choosing a diet.  IMO, this reasoning has an inherent
> contradiction.
> 
 
First, let's look at the complete context of Ingrid's quote. I don't have the 
exact quote with me, but it's something along the lines of:

   When it comes to feeling pain, rat=pig=dog=boy.

That is, independent of the species feeling it, pain is pain and it sucks. I 
assume that Ingrid is merely saying there's no *qualitative* difference in 
the pain that's felt, and isn't commenting on whether there's a quantitative 
difference (i.e. one species might feel more pain than another, but it's 
still pain.). You'd have to ask her exactly what she meant. Bottom line: the 
ability to feel pain is shared by many animals, humans and non-humans.

The second half of your question deals with the framework of ethics. As I see 
it, ethics are a human invention meant to provide guidelines for human 
behavior. Barring apotheosis, we're scarcely authorized to determine these 
guidelines for other species (though of course we do all the time with our 
companion animals). Thus, we can't expect them to follow our rules. On the 
other hand, it'd make no sense to follow theirs. The non-human animal kingdom 
is amoral; virtually ANY ethic we posit will be at odds with "natural 
behavior", otherwise the ethic wouldn't be needed. In the non-human animal 
world, murder, theft, rape, etc. are commonplace. Does such behavior truly 
provide the best model for our ethics? Was the height of human ethics reached 
20,000 years ago, and we've been in decline since? I think not. 
Bottom line: humans invented ethics to provide guidance to humans.

Thus, we have:

   - Pain sucks, and the ability to feel it is shared by many species.
   - Humans invented ethics to provide guidance to humans.

I find no contradiction here at all. Do you? Now let's look at the other side 
of the coin. Many people seem to think that:

  - Being special, human lives are worth far, far more than non-humans.
  - Being the same as non-humans, it's ok for us to eat meat.

 
Thus, we're worthy of extraordinary protection, but are ordinary enough to 
take our assigned place in the food chain, like any good animal should. Do 
you see a bit of a contradiction here?

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals