From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Let them eat grass!
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:10:30 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan11.222039.19134@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>
>	Again with the same reasoning, we may as easily conclude
>	that social virtues which we hold in high regard do not,
>	should not, and cannot apply to those outside our social
>	structure, especially since we cannot objectively determine
>	which beings other than ourselves are "deserving or owed
>	such kindness, compassion or respect."  Such a determination
>	is, by definition, subjective, which confines it to the
>	realm of personal opinion.  That we make allowances for
>	other humans is to be expected...we are, after all, of
>	the same species...but to extend this to some personally
>	selected sub-set of non-human species is a triumph of
>	anthropomorphism over analysis.

Isn't there an awful lot concealed in that "after all"? The
question is why draw the line around members of our own species
and say "Inside this circle: important. Outside the circle: not
important". For much of history, people have drawn the line
around their clan, their tribe, their nation, their race. The
people of Somalia can hardly be said to be "part of our social
structure", yet we generally accept that they should be
accorded at least a certain amount of kindness, compassion,
and respect. Since this sense cannot derive from their place
in our social structure, whence can it derive? Surely only
from an arbitrary line drawn at the species level. Can you
tell me why this level is non-arbitrary?

>	And what is this but the fundamentalist call-to-arms saying,
>	"we are right, and they are wrong?"  There is no respect for
>	the opinions of others here; no allowance that a fundamentally
>	different perception of the world might result in a fundamen-
>	tally altered view of what is "ethical" and what is not.  There
>	is no admission that variances in moral structure within human
>	society may not only be acceptable, but in some cases, desirable.
>
>	By what standard can one opinion be judged "right" and another
>	"wrong?"  Opinions are, by their very nature, both "right" and
>	"wrong," aligning not with some absolute standard, but with the
>	agreement or disagreement of other opinion-holders.  The closest
>	we may approach any absolute standard is an opinion which is
>	enforceable upon other either by agreement or by force.  Even
>	then, such a standard remains, at its base, an opinion.

Yes, but surely this is true about all the laws in society. They are
all codifications of "mere opinions", and only a bit less "mere"
through being widely shared. Do we fail to respect serial killers'
varying moral structures when we apprehend them and lock them up?
I suppose we do. Every law on the books amounts in some way or
another to holding another to a moral standard with which he may
be in disagreement; so it is hardly a criticism of a proposed law
to point out that it, too, would do this. I don't suggest that we
attempt to make meat-eating illegal, but if we did do so it would
not be fundamentally different from a bunch of white guys sitting
down and passing laws to the effect that lynching black guys is
henceforth prohibited.

>	Yet, it is surely patent that no benefit accrues to the lion from
>	such a practice.  It is merely salve to the conscience of the
>	keeper.  If, as has been said, lions eating zebras are not "morally
>	culpable," then why engage in such an effort?  Clearly, Man simply
>	imitating that which the lion practices in its natural habitat
>	cannot be accused of moral turpitude when feeding the lion.  It
>	may, indeed, be possible to feed lions without killing animals, but
>	what have we gained?  What has the lion, as a non-moral being, 
>	gained?
>
>	The human has gained peace of mind, perhaps, but the lion has
>	gained nothing.

The zebra that didn't get eaten has gained a lot. I can't see that
the human's peace of mind is a significant factor in the calculation.
That could probably have been acheived by an appropriate dose of
Valium.

>-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)

Rich, I love the way you write here. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals