From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:56:21 GMT

In article <BxvrwG.Dyn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>It seems clear that any animal that lives within a social 
>organization must be capable, either through instinct or learned 
>behavior, to recognize the rules of conduct that are applicable 
>within the society in which they live.  Do such rules constitute 
>"rights" as I normally use the term?  Not really.  Nevertheless, 
>they do represent a kind of moral order.  


The behavior that your dogs are showing is not some sort of "moral order".
It is refered to as a peck order.  Morals have nothing to do with it.  The
dogs do not consider an action (say to take something from the other dog) as morally right or wrong 
What they are considering is whether they
will be physically chastized by the other for their actions.  In other
words I'm not going to do that because I'll get my ass kicked.  Don't
bring morals into this.

Are you suggesting animals can make conscious moral decisions? 

>jc> In asking about the subset of animal 
>jc> rights I do not understand how the rights that humans have 
>jc> established in various political states (as rights given in each 
>jc> country vary) can be a subset when I don't see any rights that 
H>jc> non-human animals afford each other.  In other words the only 
>jc> rights apparent are those set-up within certain political 
>jc> boundaries for humans.  
>
>Let's not forget that humans are animals.  As much as we'd like
>to think that we resemble the gods, the truth of the matter is
>that Washoe the Chimp and I are half-brothers on the tree of
>animal life, just as you and I are identical twins.  While dogs
>and cows and rats may be more distant relatives, they are 
>relatives nonetheless.  

Russell, twice you have used the "Humans are animals." argument to suggest
that human rights should be granted to animals. But, animals are not
human.


Humans are animals.
Humans have rights.
Hence, all animals have rights.

along the same lines
Humans are animals
Humans are warm blooded.
Hence, all animals are warm blooded.

There is a falacy in this kind of argument. (I think its called a falacy
of inclusion.  But, its been along time since my class in logic.)

1) We all agree that humans are animals.
2) We all agree in human rights. 
3) I don't agree that animals are humans and should be treated as such

Russell writes>
>The dogs that live with me have emotions, just as I have 
>emotions, 

Hence I am a dog? 

See the falacy Russell
Besides I couldn't resist putting that in there.

Russell writes:
>and they apparently have a kind of analytical skill 
>(albeit non-verbal perhaps) that permits them to solve problems 
>in their head, just as I solve problems in my head.  My 
>observations of them have reconfirmed, over and over again, the 
>notion that the mental differences between my four legged friends 
>and by two legged friends are a matter of degree, rather than a 
>matter of kind.  
>
No. It is a difference of kind and not degree.  Can you claim that animals
know the difference between right and wrong on a moral bases?  I suggest
their decisions of right and wrong are based on reward.

                                   Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************