From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:14:54 GMT

In <BrzAI9.GzI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.712114040@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Quite simply, I ask myself, "Is it worth killing for?"  To
>ds> eat is worth killing for, to be secure in my home is worth it, to
>ds> be free is worth it.  That's about it, really.  That my food could
>ds> be a cabbage instead of a steer bears no relevance, since I would
>ds> be killing either in order to consume them, and I much prefer eating
>ds> beef to cole slaw (thus weighting my decision to kill a steer a bit).
>ds>
>ds> I make little to no distinction based on mental ability...

>If mental abilities, ie the abilities that make life meaningful 
>for a given individual, don't figure in your ethical formulae, 
>then why would it be acceptable in your opinion to pull the plug 
>on brain-dead comatose humans, but not ok to kill alert, 
>wide-awake human beings?  It seems to me that you do, indeed, 
>take mental abilities into account where humans are concerned but 
>simply dismiss them in the case of non-human animals.  

	If I feel the death of either is worth killing for, then I'd
pull the plug on either.  In the case of that brain-dead patient, it's
now a organ donor.  In the case of the alert patient, is it worth
killing him?  Perhaps there might exist a reason, but I can't think of
one at this point.  Like I said before, if the brain is dead the organism
is dead so far as I'm concerned.  My ferrets are quite nearly brain-dead
to judge from observed behavior, but I wouldn't sacrifice the life of
a ferret for a dog, no matter how much more intelligent the dog may be.
That I consider other humans in a preferred light to animals is a tribal
thing, sort of a taboo, and not based on intelligence evidence.

>If eating is worth killing for, would you defend the activities
>of Jeffrey Dahmer?  In view of the fact that you make little or
>no distinction based on mental ability, is there any ethical difference
>between Jeffrey Dahmer's consumption of humans and my consumption
>of pasta (ie ground wheat seeds)?

	Nope, none at all.  Dahmer's crime was that cannibalism isn't
socially acceptable, and he was not in a position where such may have
become acceptable.  Had be been on a life raft in the middle of the
Pacific with no food, cannibalism would have been justified and hence
socially acceptable.  If eating pasta is socially unacceptable, you
might (ahem) be in the same boat.

>ds> I make little to no distinction based on mental ability.  Yes, it is
>ds> morally right to kill another human in self-defense, and in some
>ds> situations it's morally right to murder.  If some alien came down
>ds> and decided the same thing with respect to humans, I'd live with
>ds> it, or die fighting it, but those are the breaks.  That I didn't
>ds> like being hunted down doesn't change the base concept.

>Why not?   If such things as pain and fear and discomfort don't
>count in the evaluation of "goodness" and "badness", then what does
>count in the "base concept"?   

	What counts in the "base concept" is who is doing the thinking
and can enforce their views.  My pain and suffering, though minimal,
should automatically cause a cessation of my being hunted.  If this were
the case, we'd never send criminals to jail.  That the alien decided
to use a MegaZot ray gun instead of a pocket knife takes my pain and
suffering into account far enough.

>rl> Ah, who knows?  Perhaps if you were to present your views with 
>rl> greater clarity, you might be able to convince people like myself 
>rl> that it'd be a good thing, and not a bad thing, for us to use and 
>rl> abuse other beings to suit our own selfish purposes.  Give it 
>rl> your best shot.  

>ds> 	Alright, I will: I'm selfish.  I want wildlife to hunt, to
>ds> watch, and to play with...

>You mentioned in a previous article that slavery was ethically 
>ok.  If you truly believe this, is there any sort of action that
>you would consider unethical?  Or, are actions simply actions in
>your mind...  with no perception whatsoever of good or bad 
>consequences?

	The perception of an action being good or bad is societal.  I
did not say slavery was ethically ok to me, I said it was considered ok
by other societies in other times and places.  I truly believe that
the Romans, for example, found slavery ethical and that it was so to
them at that time.  "Good" and "bad" are not absolutes that do not
change with society and time.  The consequences are measured against
the common yardstick of societal mores of the time, and actions taken
accordingly.  That I refuse to believe some things that I consider
immoral were always, and always will be, immoral must really stick
in your craw.

>Incidently, would it be ethically ok for you to steal something
>from someone else, if it suited some particular need?  Please
>explain.

	That would depend on the severity of the need, and on if
I claimed responsibility for the action.  If I needed a car to
drive a wounded person to a hospital, and that was the only way
I could do so, then yes stealing the car would be ok.  If I wanted
to steal a TV so I could watch the evening news, I'm afraid not.
Basically, I'm balancing one need against another, and determining
which is greater.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals