From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: RE: What would *you* have done?
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:35:54 CDT
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

John S. Van Etten writes:
> Then one day some years ago, one of my closest friends was out
> checking his mink traps along a stream that runs through the

	Hunting ... I can probably tolerate being around a person who hunts
without arguing with him.  But anyone I see wearing a fur, the tension and
anger I feel towards them is somewhere beyond ten times the tension I would
feel towards of a hunter.  Hunting animals for food ... doesn't sound good at
all. But hunting an animal for fur ... this is down-right sickening.  Humans
need food.  Humans definitely do not need fur coats. 
	Don't get me started about this one ... I'm liable to actually get
nasty.

>      So you and your AR friends can tell me all day long that I'm a
> bad guy for shooting dogs that have packed up.  You can tell me all
> the Lassie and Ole Yeller stories that you want.  You can shout about
> sentience and sapience until you go hoarse.  You can call me a
> hypocrite because I often claim that I "eat what I kill."  And you
> can hold your breath until you all turn blue.  I'm still going to put
> those pups down without a second's hesitation.  Someone's life may be
> at stake.  I know too many guys that have been treed by them.

	These animals have instincts like everything else.  And if my life was 
at stake, I wouldn't think twice before killing one that attacked me.  But ONLY 
if I was being attacked ... that's it.  Speculating, and then shooting an 
animal because it "might" be dangerous is wrong.  If a man wearing a ski-mask 
waltzes into a convenience store and buys a pack of cigarettes, he may make 
some people nervous, but he wouldn't go to jail.  But if he attempted to rob 
such a place and got caught, only then would he be jailed.

> I've never yet enumerated the "rights" that I feel animals should
> have, and am not likely to fully do so here.  In general, I would say
> that animals have the same "right" to life and to fair treatment that
> humans do, up to the point where a human may benefit from taking the
> animal's life (eating it, etc.) or by treating it in a cruel fashion
> (experimenting on it, etc.), although I'm keying this in on the fly
> and it is not a well thought out answer by any means.  I also feel
> that additional "rights" should be incurred if the species is
> endangered.

	I won't begin to point out various demented justifications of your 
"rights," because you've informed me that you haven't been complete.  I get 
your picture, though, and it clearly makes sense for your point of view.

>      What rights do *you* feel that an animal should have, David?

	It's very simple.  Animals have the right to live and avoid bodily harm
in all cases where something's survival is not directly at stake.  To be
frank, I haven't formulated my platform concerning using animals for testing. 
It's okay to assume that my view would be very conservative, though. 

> Should your dog be able to eat your neighbor's cat if it wants to?

	This is a silly question.  If my dog chases my neighbor's cat, I will 
try to stop him.  If he succeeds, then I would understand that such behavior
is only instinctive.  The dog is not evil.

> You've said that you don't think a cat is anyone's property.  Should
> your dog be able to run outdoors and kill rabbits?  Bear in mind that

	Your questions are too ambiguous.  If my dog is not constantly chained
or fenced in, its obviously free to roam.  How can I warn him not to kill
rabbits because he has plenty of dog-food between the stove and the
refrigerator in my kitchen?  I can't.  The dog's actions are instinctive.  He
doesn't have the intelligence to determine options rationally and thoughtfully
like every human being with an IQ above 100 can (*can* does not mean to imply
*does*). 

> you feed it, and as such it is merely killing for "sport" as you AR
> folk are so fond of calling it.  Should a wolf be able to eat your dog
> if it wants to?  Should wild dog packs be able to kill children?

	Gimme a break, okay?  Did I honestly imply that I believe dogs should
be allowed to kill children?  Or is your question rhetorical?  If it is, then 
it's also unnecessary and irrelevant.

> Should they be able to kill deer?  Bear in mind the fact that they
> often kill far more deer than they can eat, because they enjoy
> killing.  Should a bear (a fellow omnivore) have the right to go to a

	How can it enjoy it?  If you define enjoyment as the fulfillment of an 
instinctive desire, then you are correct, animals enjoy killing.  But you keep 
applying the actions of animals to human terms.  Because a human being 
possesses sentience, that definitely changes the map.  A human has the 
obligation to his fellow humans to exercise control over his impulses.  Every 
time I feel like I want punch out someone for being a complete asshole and 
cause them bodily harm, I must refrain.  Animals can act only on instinct 
(which includes some level of conditioning to their individual environments).
This is a valid defense on their part.

> stream and eat salmon, when it *could* go and munch on berries
> instead?  Just like us nasty mean old hunters, it too "has a choice."

	No, it doesn't.  A choice implies there are more than one option.  For 
animals, there are not.  Instinct is their only option.

> There are countless other cases I could ask about, but I would like to
> know where you draw your line (and of course, why).  You have often
> said that you think nature left alone is quite peaceful (forgive me
> but I can't figure out why you think that other than lack of being in
> touch with it).

	Come on.  I also said it was quite violent.  I'm really getting tired 
of someone putting words in my mouth.  By "peaceful," I meant that nature is in 
harmony with the Earth and the environment (indeed, both are the same).

>                  Should all these things I've mentioned which exist in
> your peaceful "hands off" nature be considered good things?  I'm not
> trying to pick on you or anything, David, but I am curious to learn
> more about how you've come up with your views.

	Yes.  Balance is good.  The opposite of good is evil ... animals are
not capable of being evil.  Only humans.
 
*> 	No, I don't -- not everyone.  Ethics can only be judged by their
*> colleagues and their society, as mine will.  I don't expect people to
*> disagre with the kind of ethics I have displayed as much as they would
*> with someone's who believed it was ethical to enslave anyone with a mole
*> on their butt cheek. In my acting according to my ethical standards, I
*> suspect I would have some enemies and more than some supporters.  My
*> ethics deal with the defence of all innocent life.  Most people would
*> definitely not see that as negative, even as broad as I have viewed it. 
> 
> I read this to mean that you think it's OK for you to break the law or
> commit other unethical acts, but not necessarily OK for others to do
> the same.  What makes you think that your actions in defense of "all
> innocent life" are OK just because you perceive the majority of the
> people as being sympathetic?  What I mean is, what means you should be

	You're being too broad and ambiguous again.  Clear definitions of such 
terms like, "unethical," are called for.  I can say, however, that most of the 
things that we agree are not ethical I do not feel I have the right to commit.
These things include whatever makes a victim of an innocent person or thing.

> the one able to judge what is right or wrong in these cases?  Is it
> that you think the end result justifies having you bear some hardship
> (i.e., if you were to steal the dog and find a "good home" for it, is
> it "OK" because you would be willing to pay the price of going to jail
> or being fined if you got caught)?

	This is all almost irrelevant.  Just know I will do whatever I believe 
to be right.  That's it.  What else needs to be said?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Caruso II                       "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals