From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Ethical Relativism.  Was: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:25:58 GMT


Russell Lawrence asks John Van Etten:
rl> Speaking of inconsistencies, I'm still waiting for you to explain
rl> the following:
rl> 
rl> why you think it would be morally ok for super-intelligent aliens
rl> to hunt humans for sport, but not morally ok for humans to hunt
rl> humans.

Dan Sorenson replies:
ds> If they can do it, it's doesn't matter a whole lot what I think, 
ds> does it?  If their morals show it's fine, it's fine.  Morals go 
ds> to those who can enforce them.  I'm sure the blacks we enslaved 
ds> in years gone by didn't like it, but until popular opinion 
ds> decided it was unethical, it was an ethical thing to do.

Russell Lawrence asks John Van Etten:
rl> Has it occurred to you that an action might be ethical or unethical
rl> regardless of the power of the person performing the action?

From article <viking.712134093@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Yes, it has.  I've discovered that there is no absolute morality
ds> or ethical code. 

How would a man searching for a particular set of facts be able 
to discover that the facts do not exist?  By searching every nook and 
cranny of the universe, perhaps, and then reporting that the 
objects in question were nowhere to be found?   Do you have a degree
in ethics, by any chance?  

ds> Like the vast majority of criminals who cry their
ds> innocence after being convicted, the person being "picked on" is the
ds> first to cry morality, while effectively this action must be moral for
ds> it to be commonplace.  

It seems to me that the justice or injustice of a courtroom trial 
would depend on the effectiveness of the court in digging away at 
the truth.  You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the 
goodness of a particular judicial action can be measured solely 
by public opinion.  

From the late middle ages through the mid-17th century, it was 
commonplace for men in power to hang or burn heretics, if they
were judged guilty by the appropriate court of justice.  To 
determine whether such an action was truly good or bad, would
we make an effort to examine all the facts, or, would we simply
conduct an opinion poll?  

ds> Think of it this way, Russ: you belive hunting
ds> to be unethical, but you're in the minority.  It's no wonder you wish
ds> to base your argument on ethical grounds.  Those of us with the guns
ds> simply disagree with your ethical view, and it remains for you to
ds> change our minds if you want hunting to be unethical.  For the moment,
ds> hunting is ethical and quite enjoyable.

So you say, but I consider your opinions to be highly suspect.  
Perhaps you can redeem your credibility by explaining why you 
consider slavery to be ethical simply because some men consider it
such.

rl> Would rape or slavery truly be ethical if a sufficient number of 
rl> persons in power declared such activities to be acceptable?

ds> Yes.  Read your history.

I can point to any number of dead authors who believed that 
slavery is ethical, just as I can point to several past
authorities who believed rape to be ethical.  Is a mere belief 
the same as truth?  If Himmler believed that killing jews 
was ethically good, would this belief transform suffering into
pleasure?

rl> Would the victims not suffer just the same?

ds> That depends on the slave-owner and the society of the time.

This makes no sense whatsoever.  Why would the suffering of any
given person be dependent on the mind-set of someone else?  If
your leg were cut-off as a result of someone's carelessness, would
your pain be non-existent simply because I might be unaware of it?

Consider the run-away slave, Dred Scott, whose suit for freedom 
was judged by the Supreme Court.  In presenting the majority 
opinion of the court, Chief Justice Taney reaffirmed the ancient 
notion that the right of a citizen to own "property" is more 
important than the personal thoughts and feelings running through 
the mind of an alleged possession like Dred Scott.  

Did Scott suffer?  Or would you say that the badness of his 
bondage simply disappeared in the sea of prevailing opinion that 
property rights are a good thing?  

rl> Or would their suffering not matter?

ds> Now you're catching on!  If it doesn't matter to those who are in 
ds> control of the slaves, it doesn't matter.  Period.  You're a 
ds> slave?  Too bad, but those are the breaks.  I'm certain every 
ds> traitor executed thinks it's immoral to do so, but I don't 
ds> particularly care what traitors think.  Get the idea now, Russ?  

Are you an advocate for ignorance, or, are you an advocate for 
truth?  I realize that the suffering of slaves may not have 
mattered in the least to some slaveowners, but you seem to be 
going a step further in claiming that there existed no additional 
data worthy of consideration.  (yikes)

And you justify your position in this matter, not by searching 
for additional evidence to determine the goodness or badness of 
slavery, but by declaring that additional evidence simply doesn't 
matter.  

ds> Too bad, Russ, but I enjoy hunting, and if aliens ever came down 
ds> are started hunting me I think I'd enjoy the challenge.  In any 
ds> event, my opinions on the matter wouldn't make a difference, and 
ds> I don't think they need to.  For that matter, the shouldn't.  

rl> Why should your opinions not make a difference?  In evaluating 
rl> the consequences of an ethical action, do you really think it's 
rl> inappropriate to stop and consider the thoughts and feelings of 
rl> the victims?

ds> Of course not, but I said they shouldn't make a difference, and 
ds> that they most likely wouldn't anyway to the alien.  

Once again, you're claiming that a truthful appraisal of good and 
bad outcomes has no bearing in our determination of the goodness or
badness of any given action.

Of course, you only make this claim when it fits in with
your set of ideological beliefs.  Otherwise, you wouldn't argue 
so fervently that hunting is a good thing because it saves deer 
from starving.  If the suffering of the victims has no bearing on 
the goodness or badness of human sport hunting, why should the 
alleged mercy killing of deer be a good thing?  

ds> If you enjoy being beaten, should I consider your liking of this 
ds> action when I dislike it?  No, I'll go with what I think is best 
ds> to do.  

You're free to control your body in any manner of your choosing, as
long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other thinking/feeling
individuals.

The analogous question is not whether or not you have an obligation
to beat someone who enjoys being beaten.  Rather, the question that
I would pose is whether or not a person who enjoys beating others is
engaging in good conduct when he beats the hell out of strangers on
the street?   If he has the power to get away with such actions, you
would apparently argue that he is, indeed, behaving ethically.  On the
other hand, I would contend that your judgment stems from gross
ignorance, specifically your refusal to consider the suffering of the
victims.

ds> That 
ds> you might disagree with my actions makes little difference to me 
ds> -- I'm a big boy now, and I'll keep my own counsel on what is an 
ds> ethical action.  The alien, I'm sure, has already thought the 
ds> action out and found it ethical to him in much the same manner.  

You're not a lonely god in a lonely universe.   You're entitled to
treat your own body as you see fit, but you're not entitled to
claim the minds and bodies of other individuals.

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