From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:23:11 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ...  The concept of rights, as we use the term, is roughly three 
rl> hundred years old;  civilization has been around for a 
rl> considerably longer period.  

In article <1992Nov11.230039.8490@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Greg Popken:
gp> Give me a break Russell!  Are you saying that ancient Roman 
gp> society did not give different castes varying degrees of 
gp> rights.  

rl> Rights based on caste privileges?  Thanks for illustrating my
rl> point.

gp> What point?

The romans valued the "rights" of masters to rule slaves, whereas 
most secular post-enlightenment philosophers have valued the 
"rights" of thinking/feeling beings to pursue their own personal 
ends in life.  Can you see the dichotomy between the two views?  

The concept of "rights" as special privileges based on power is, 
indeed, an ancient one.  Is that the concept that you endorse?  
Or, would you be more inclined to favor the modern concept of 
rights, which embodies our growing respect for the thinking/feeling 
abilities of other minds as well as the rightful claim of those minds
on the bodies that they inhabit.

rl> Question: Should rights be accorded on the basis of
rl> an individual's thinking/feeling abilities?  Or, should they
rl> be accorded on the basis of their membership in a political
rl> or genetic class?

gp> I will say this again Russell. Please pay attention!  Rights 
gp> are human.  They are something that should be bestowed on all 
gp> HUMANS.

When I pointed out that the modern concept of rights is roughly 
three hundred years old at best, you protested, and responded
that the romans endorsed privileges based on political and 
genetic classes.  Do you admire the roman view?  Or, would you 
prefer the notions set forth by Locke, Montesquieu, Paine, and 
others?  

rl> If I were to torture a man, would the badness of my action depend
rl> on his ability to feel pain.  Or, would it depend on his ability
rl> to conceptualize pain in various ways?

gp> A man? No. This is politics.talk. ANIMALS. isn't it?

Do you agree with me that the badness of torture depends on the 
victim's ability to feel pain, rather than her ability to develop 
and/or communicate conceptions of pain?  If so, please explain 
why it might be "bad" to torture a woman, but "not bad" to 
torture a female chimpanzee.  

rl> You've asked me whether rats have a concept of "fairness", 
rl> presumably implying that the inability to categorize experience 
rl> in a certain way would disqualify an individual for rightful 
rl> consideration. 

gp> No, I disqualify ann "individuals " consideration of rights based on
gp> species.               

Are your genetic arguments fundamentally different from the following:

 --- King Louis XIV's disqualification of a political competitor on
     the grounds that the competitor was not-bourbon, ie not a member 
     of the king's own family.  (family class)

 --- An anti-bellum slaveowner's disqualification of a revolting 
     slave, on the grounds that the man was not a member of the white
     race.  (racial class)

Wouldn't it be more just to grant, and deny, rights on the basis of
abilities, rather than genetic classification?  

rl> Humans are animals, Greg. And human rights are a subset of animal 
rl> rights.   

gp> ...
gp> that's a big leap, even for you Russell. Who made this rule?.

It's an observation... not a rule.   Are you denying that humans are
animals?

> ...
rl> This takes me back to my previous question:  Do Miami socialites 
rl> need fur coats to stay warm?  or to enhance their sense of personal
rl> beauty?  or to improve their standing in various social circles?
rl> In short, would you be willing to admit that the pain suffered
rl> by caged mink and trapped foxes could be easily avoided?  

gp> Sure.  In addition the "pain and sufferring inflicted on animals" 
gp> in research can be easily avoided.  But, what are the 
gp> concequences of these actions?  

The consequences of a ban on fur coats would be this: Miami 
socialites would end up wearing non-fur coats on cold nights, or 
perhaps, no coats at all if the nights are warm.  Would you be 
in favor of such a ban?  

rl> I realize that you're personally opposed to animal suffering, but
rl> it seems to me that you've arranged things in your mind in such a
rl> way that you're willing to overlook suffering whenever and whereever
rl> it occurs. 

gp> THIS IS ABSURD!

Do you support the ancient right of powerful men to appropriate
the minds and bodies of less powerful individuals?  Or, would you
prefer to support the rights of mink and foxes to keep their
own skins?

rl> Let's distinguish between personal rights and property rights.  In our
rl> society, humans have the right to appropriate the bodies of non-human
rl> animals... just as surely as roman citizens often had the right to 
rl> appropriate the bodies of human animals.   Is this a personal right
rl> or a property right?

gp> Russell, we are running in circles.  I am not discussing human rights.
gp> Please stop making analogies to rights of humans in the same situation.

We're not running in circles.  I'm asking you to make a distinction
between personal rights and property rights.  Is there some reason why
you'd object to such a distinction?

rl> ...  In regards to the review process, would you be in favor 
rl> of legislation that would extend the involvement of private 
rl> individuals who do not have a vested interest in animal 
rl> experimentation?  

gp> Presently all agencies that receive ferderal funding must comply with very
gp> tight standards regarding animal care and use in experimentation.  

This isn't true.  The infamous "cat shooting" experiments that I
referenced a few days ago were not subject to an initial review.  The
review that led to the cessation of funding came about as a consequence
of special initiative on the part of Congressman Bob Livingston, who 
represents the New Orleans area.

gp> I have no problem expanding these regulations to include all agencies
gp> doing biomedical research.

Great.  Unfortunately there are quite a few lobby groups that oppose
such regulations, notably the AMA.

gp> I don't know who you are refering to when you say "have a vested interest
gp> in animal research."  I don't know of anyone doing primary research that
gp> is in it for the money , if that's what you are suggesting. 

Oh, I'm sure that money isn't the only motivator, but in the case
of the "cat shooting" research, it was pretty substantial.  The
facilities and equipment required for the project were rudimentary,
yet the experiment cost taxpayers 2.1 million dollars.  Would you be
willing to shoot 700 cats, and attempt to resuscitate them, for 
$3000 per cat?

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