From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunting is Ethical
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:01:05 GMT

From article <C1CDA0.En9@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
> In <C18wAF.1x7@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>The lions mentioned in Will's previous post, for example, are 
>>undeniably "sentient", but they may lack the "sapience" and 
>>knowledge to fully understand the consequences of their actions 
>>and to alter them in some way.  Mature, mentally healthy human 
>>beings, by contrast, are capable of understanding the impact that 
>>their actions have on other individuals, in spite of their 
>>ability to "get away" with a particular action.  
> 
> My problem came from the fact that I didn't consider the lion sapient and
> by transitive property neither the deer.  Ergo we could hunt them with
> impunity.  
> 
> It appears that your definition of sentience differs from mine.  This
> however raises a question:  do you agree that sentient beings should
> avoid killing each other?  

Sentient (feeling) beings aren't necessarily sapient;  they may 
be totally lacking in the ability to make thoughtful decisions in 
life.  And even sapient (thinking) beings possess different 
degrees of sapient ability.  A severely retarded man, for 
example, may possess the ability to work out simple decisions 
about his own life, yet lack the ability to understand how/why 
rape and murder are bad choices.  

> If so then do you consider what the lion does
> to the deer as wrong?  Or is sapience also necessary to make the
> distinction (personally I lump sapience as an integral part of sentient),
> sort of not guilty by ignorance?

It's important to maintain a distinction, not only between 
sentience and sapience, but in degrees of sentience and sapience 
as well.  Otherwise, our deliberations about our ethical 
obligations toward other individuals may become meaningless.  
Suppose, for example, that you enjoy heavy metal music, yet you 
live in a duplex house where the wall separating you from your 
neighbor is very thin.  Your human neighbor is elderly and 
"sentient", so it might be inconsiderate for you to play your 
music at 2:00AM.  Perhaps, but not if your neighbor is completely 
deaf, ie aurally "insentient".  If his hearing is totally 
impaired, your decision to play or not to play your music would 
make no difference to him.  Clearly, it's sentience and sapience that 
permit other beings to experience life in a meaningful way, and 
to experience the impact that our actions might have on them.  

Is the lion guilty when he kills the deer?  Not in my opinion.  
Nor would I consider most human hunters to be "guilty".  As one 
of your heros once said, "they don't know what they do".  Even 
animals that are capable of making choices, educated human beings 
for example, may lack the knowledge and experience to make the 
best possible choice in a particular circumstance.  Christians 
who burned other human beings during the middle ages, for 
instance, made some very bad choices, but it would be unwise for 
us to hold them "guilty" of their actions.   

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