From: gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: re: moral judgements
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 15:15:32 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

David Caruso II writes >>>
I respond to David >>
Robert Black  responds to me>

>>>  	When I, and probably most animal rights activists, claim that sport
>>>hunting is wrong, we do not do so blindly and without thought or facts.  
>>>But since animals rights activists do not hunt, it is feasible to assume 
>>>that we do not know every detail, law, and statistic related to hunting as 
>>>some hunters do. 
>>>	When it comes to sport hunting, I do not base my decision that it is
>>>wrong on statistics.  I do so, because quite simply, I believe that killing 
>>>an animal for any other reason besides survival is *morally* wrong. 
>>>	Sport hunters can create all the justifications for their action they
>>>choose to.  However, they cannot argue that what they do is morally 
>>>acceptable.  Claiming that they are actually putting the animals out of 
>>>their misery (and in doing so, are morally justified) is not truly valid.  

>I'm not David, but I'll take a shot at some of your very reasonable questions.

>>For me hunting is morally acceptable because the Judeo-Christian teachings I 
>>learned as a child tells me that eating animals is acceptable.

>Everything we learn as children is not necessarily the final word.  As
>we grow, we all need to rethink and refine our knowledge by constantly
>exposing ourselves to other ideas and evaluating the childhood lessons
>in the light of our later experiences.

>As a child, I too grew up under the penumbra of Judeo-Christian
>teachings, which have introduced to the world a lot of good ideas about
>how humans should treat other humans but which are unfortunately
>somewhat deficient in the task of consistently addressing how we should
>view and treat animals.

I used  Judeo-Christian teachings as an example because they have endured 
for good reason.  In fact I feel that many of our social problems stem from 
the fact that we have abandoned these teachings in recent years and are 
now paying the consequences.  But that is a subject for another discussion 
on another forum.  My point is that while no religion or philosophy is 
perfect, these teachings have served me well through the years.   

>>  However, I have a big problem with the very concept of "animal rights".

>When I first heard the term, it struck me as an obvious oxymoron.  When
>I investigated further, it increasingly became clear that the animal rights
>concept was an inevitable extension of human rights.  It is not really
>incompatible with Judeo-Christian teaching.  And it has a strong rational
>base to it.

I disagree.  Judeo-Christian teachings tell us that man was created in God's 
image and was given dominion over the animals(Genesis 1:27).   The concept
of animal having rights is directly opposed to this very basic principle of  
Judeo-Christian teachings.

>1.  I'm no expert in what God thinks.  But I have been told that if
>he/she is speaking to us through the bible, then Genesis 1;29-31 can be
>interpreted to indicate a vegetarian diet for mankind originally.  Then
>when the Fall occurred, all the universe was thrown into a disharmony
>and disequilibrium.  Suffering and perverse practices predominated and
>these included practices like animal-eating.  In order to reverse this
>and return to our original state of paradise, we must, among a multitude
>of other things, renounce the eating of animals.

If this is true, why was God pleased when Abel brought him "fat portions from
some of the first born of his flock" (Genesis 4:4)? It goes with out saying 
Abel slaughtered slaughtered  sheep in order order to prepare his offering.  
However later on in the very same chapter when Cain killed Abel (a human)
God was very displeased (Genesis 4:8-12).  I can't find any biblical references
telling me that eating animals is wrong.

A friend of mine shot his first deer two years ago.  His wife was troubled
by this and talked to her priest about it.  The priest told her husband had
done nothing wrong in the eyes of God.

>The modern official Christian attitude toward animals seems to be
>summed up by Thomas Aquinas, who opposed exploitation of animals, not
>because of the effect on the animals themselves but because it could
>evolve into cruelty toward humans.  

What is a crock of bull$%^#!  I've been a hunter for several years now and I 
have NEVER had the urge to shoot humans.  Violence among humans  is
caused by other things like anger or jealousy.  I feel none of these things
when I am hunting.

>Remember that this news group is called talk.politics.animals not
>talk.religion.animals.  Whether or not God exists or cares about what we
>do to animals is a discussion more for the latter group and is not
>necessarily relevant to a political discussion about animal issues. 
>Independently of what we may think God is telling us, there are still
>sound moral reasons for recognition by man that animals have rights. 

This thread is about moral values.  Because religious teachings influence
our values, it's very relevant to the discussion.  However I agree that we 
may stray from the original subject if we pursue the religious aspect further.

>Ask yourself why you believe that humans have rights, and then what
>relevant differences there are between humans and non humans that would
>lead you to deny that animals have rights.

I'll start with the fact that animals are not people.  People have the 
ability to tell right from wrong, to contemplate their actions on a moral
basis.  Then there is the ability to create, to use language  the list goes
on and on.  All of these makes human lives more valuable than the lives of 
animals. 
 
>Try this.  Take a right that you believe humans have.  Is there a
>relevant difference between humans and non human animals which justify
>denying that right to non humans? In some cases, I think you'll answer
>yes; in other cases, no.  For example, if it's wrong to routinely eat
>humans, then why would it not be wrong to routinely eat animals.  What
>criteria do we and should we apply to determine the moral constraints on
>what we eat? Rationality? Presence of a "soul"? Intelligence? Sentiency?

Human lives are inherently more than valuable animal lives.  In addition in 
nature some animals are food for other species.  Therefore It is quite 
obvious to me that eating  animals is not wrong.  In fact, it is quite natural.

>  Here is Linzey discussing Regan's claims:  Individuals are 
>subjects-of-a-life (i.e. have rights) if they have:
>	- beliefs and desires.
>	- perception, memory, and a sense of the future including their own.
>	- emotional life with feelings of pleasure and pain.
>	- preferences and welfare interests.
>	- ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals.
>	- a psychological identity over time.
>	- an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life
>	  fares well or ill for them logically independently of their
>	  utility for others and logically independently of their being
>	  the object of anyone else's interest.

Does the individual have to have one of these traits or all of them to be 
"subjects-of-a-life"?  If your answer is all of them then I'd say that 
animals categorically fail on the first item, beliefs and desires.  Animals 
are not capable of beliefs.  If you say that any one trait qualifies, my 
response is that it is not enough.

>>  Furthermore, what gives you the right to pass judgment on me?

>The same thing that gives you the right to pass judgment on me if I harm
>another human, or commit any action which infringes on the rights of
>others. 

Ah, now we come to the crux of the issue.  Because you believe animals
have the same rights as humans you have the right to condemn me for hunting
and eating meat.  I  on the other hand recognize your right to pursue a 
vegetarian life style.  All  I ask of  you is to recognize my right to decide 
this issue for myself and live my life according to my own beliefs.     

>>  Morally speaking, what is the 
>>difference if I buy my meat at the supermarket or kill it myself?

>It's similar to the difference between your killing of another human or
>hiring it done? (I trust that I will not again be unjustly charged with
>equating humans and non humans here.)

That comment was aimed at other readers of this group who don't  like 
hunting, yet have no problems eating meat.

Most of your arguments have been based on comparing various behaviors 
towards humans to the same actions towards animals.  For example, eating 
humans vs. eating animals.  Be honest, haven't you been equating animals 
with humans all along? 

>>  If animals have rights, why not plants and vegetables?  How about rocks?  

>Because animals, like humans, are conscious, thinking, feeling subjects
>of a life which matters to them as individuals.  You can't say the same
>about plants and vegetables with anywhere near the same certainty (I
>realize there are readers within here who may dispute this, but they are
>on very shaky ground).  And you can't say the same at all about rocks. 

>If I smash a rock, does it care?  If I pulverize a carrot, does it care?
>If I torture a dog, does it care?

I do not want to die.  However some day it's going to happen.  Nature (or 
God) dictates that no one lives forever.  I may not like it but that doesn't 
make it wrong.  Nature dictates the deer are a prey species.  The fact that 
deer do not want to be killed for food doesn't mean that killing deer for 
food  is wrong.  

When you refer to torturing dogs, I assume you are talking about unnecessary
infliction of pain for sadistic purposes.  We both recognize it as wrong but 
for very different reasons.  For me the key words are "unnecessary 
infliction of pain."  For you the dog has rights that the man should not 
violate.

>>The ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is to outlaw all consumptive 
>>uses of animals including meat.

>First the AR movement consists of a diversity of views.  I don't know
>that it's accurate to speak of the ultimate goal of such a diverse
>collection of individuals.  Many AR people are vegetarians; others are
>vegan; still others are neither.  Some AR supporters favor total
>abolition of animal experimentation, while others prefer more stringent
>regulations. 

If you take basic philosophy of the animal rights movement (animals have 
the same rights as humans) to it's logical conclusion, the ultimate goal of
the animal rights movement becomes quite clear -- no consumption of animals.

>Secondly, is this a bad goal? If I told you of a movement in a
>cannibalistic society which aimed at outlawing all consumptive uses of
>humans, including the use of humans for food, what would your reaction
>be? If you're assuming that an end to all eating of animals is
>unequivocally bad, then on what grounds do you base this assumption?

It's bad because not every one shares your views. By outlawing the 
consumption of animals you are forcing your values upon the rest of us.    

>Thirdly, have you ever visited a slaughterhouse?  Have you ever read any 
>accounts written by someone who has?

What is your point here?  If you are trying to appeal to my emotions it 
won't work.  In answer to your questions:  No I have never visited a 
slaughterhouse.  I have participated in the butchering of wild and domestic 
animals.  I know where my meat  comes from and I accept it.   

>>  For now, the animal rights movement is using 
>>hunting,  medical research, and the fur industry to win sympathy to their 
>>cause.  

>These are seen as some of the most exploitative uses of animals, so it
>makes sense to start there ...  although you have left out one of the
>worst exploitations: factory farming. 

I'm glad that you have admitted that the goals of the animal rights 
movement extend far beyond those that are currently being advocated 
publicly.

I've heard that term used before.  It sounds like one of those buzz words
created to win sympathy for a cause (i.e. "cop killer bullets").  For me the
definition is deliberately ambiguous.  Exactly what is a factory farm and 
how does this differ from other farms?

The very fact that you brought it up supports the paragraph below.

>>In a few years when they have increased their numbers they will go 
>>after the consumption of meat.  Isn't it true that most hard core animal 
>>rights advocates are vegetarians?  

>Of course.  If they weren't, you would rightfully castigate them for
>their hypocrisy ...  and if you didn't, then the ever vigilant John Van
>Etten, who's always on the lookout for hypocrisy, would not let it go
>unnoticed ;-). 
 
>>>There are other ways to combat habitat destruction and the suffering of 
>>>animals at the hands of human beings.  

>>Let's hear them.  I'm sure thousands of professional wildlife biologists 
>>would like to know.

>Granted that hunting is the commonly accepted method and, humanely done,
>it may be the least cruel method especially for remote and inaccessible
>areas.  Many AR supporters favor re-introduction of predators.  Others,
>including wildlife managers have been considering methods like
>baiting/euthanasia, darting/euthanasia and darting/birth control.  

In some remote areas reintroducing predators makes sense.  The problem 
is the predators will inevitably attack livestock and domestic pets.  The
reason predators attack domestic animals is because they are easier to catch.
Try going into an area where a large number of people depend on farming 
for their livelihood and tell them you want to  reintroduce wolves and see
how they react.  You should reexamine the humaneness of this method.  
What is more painful to the deer, being shot through the heart or lungs and 
dying within 60 seconds or being chased and torn to shreds by a pack of 
wolves?

>Hunting as a means for wildlife population control seems to me analogous
>to the use of euthanasia by injection to control dog and cat
>populations.  It's widely used now but it's not necessarily the best
>long-range solution, and wildlife biologists are looking into
>non-killing alternatives including trapping/sterilization,
>baiting/sterilization, and darting/sterilization.  As a reference, get
>a copy of the Oct/Nov 1991 National Wildlife Federation magazine, with
>an article discussing the new hormonal vaccine called PZP which uses
>dart delivery to block fertilization.

As far as baiting, darting, sterilization, and euthanasia are concerned.  
These techniques are prohibitively expensive.  These departments have to 
manage millions of animals over thousands and thousands of acres of land.  
No state has that kind of resources.  Add to that the license fees 
collected from hunters makes hunting the only economical solution.   In
Massachusetts where I live, our Division of Fisheries and Wildlife doesn't 
get one dime of general tax revenue.  Their entire budget comes from
license fees, donations and Federal money from excise taxes on hunting
and fishing equipment. 

>>>I find it hard to believe that a sport hunter would specifically go to regions where the 
>>>animals are being overcrowded, then shoot the ones that look weak or are dying.  This 
>>>is unrealistic.  And it's not a good excuse.  Sure, I don't have all the 
>>>answers to these problems, but I can simply say that the hunters' "solutin" 
>>>is NOT a solution.

>>As others have stated hunters are attracted to the areas with the highest 
>>wildlife populations. As for shooting the ones that look weak or dying, you 
>>obviously have no concept of what wildlife management is all about.  In a 
>>nutshell the biologists figure out what the carrying capacity of the land is 
>>and then set the limits and seasons accordingly.  If the populations are not  
>>controlled in the fall when populations are at their peak the starvation will 
>>occur during the middle of winter after hunting seasons have closed.

>>Do you know what a deer yard is?  I suggest you visit one during a severe 
>>winter.

>>>	I would truly respect someone who contributed to the preservation of
>>>the environment as some hunters do, but who did not kill a deer or bear or any
>>>other animal. 

>>Why don't you be that person and leave the rest of us alone?     

>Why doesn't he stay and participate in the discussions?  What's wrong with
>a diversity of opinions that forces us all to constantly re-examine and
>re-evaluate our views?

You may recall that in his previous postings this individual  called all 
hunters "scum" and said we should be "eradicated."   He is certainly 
entitled to his views and to express them.  My remark concerned his total 
lack of respect for people who don't share his views.  

>>>	The above is my opinion.  If you disagree, fine.  I'm very willing to
>>>entertain a rational debate.  But may I be spared all the insults and 
>>>degrading remarks?  That's mostly what I've been experiencing with hunters who 
>>>choose to respond to my viewpoints. 

>>If you refrain from insults (to wit: "scum"),  I promise to do the same.

>It's a deal.

>Thanks, Tom, for some very interesting, thoughtful, and thought-provoking
>questions.

Your welcome and thank you for responding is a rational polite manner.

Tom Swenson

Freedom of the Press is great -- If YOU own the press.