From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:25:44 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Without invoking a circular argument (ie "torture is wrong 
rl> because torture is wrong"), please explain why you think humans 
rl> ought to have a right not to be tortured.  

From article <1992Nov16.203343.9011@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> the act of torturing someone is immoral and unjust because by 
gp> torturing that persons you are infringing on the persons right to 
gp> any number of things: a trial by jury, do process, etc are legal 
gp> rights that are being violated.  Moral rights that are being 
gp> violated include the right to being treated fairly, kindly, 
gp> humanely etc....  

The notion of "trial by jury" was invented by the vikings and 
introduced into english and french law via scandinavian 
influence along the coast of normandy in the early middle ages.  
And "due process", to the best of my knowledge, is a thoroughly 
modern term.  Were you assuming that such concepts were etched in 
primordial stone, perhaps?  In view of the fact that human 
concepts of "rights" have been evolving over time, isn't it 
possible that there's still room for additional improvements?  

rl> During the inquisition and counter-revolution, various european 
rl> secular authorities (under church supervision) tortured millions 
rl> of heretics in accordance with legal precedents established by 
rl> roman law.  Would you say that the heretics had no rights...  
rl> given the definition you've provided above?  

gp> Based on my defination above yes the heritics did have rights, 
gp> because they were human and capable of claiming their right not 
gp> to be tortured.  

No such "right" existed in the middle ages, Greg.  To the contrary,
the recognized corpus of moral and legal code supported the actions
of the inquisitors, rather than protestations of the victims.

gp> The church however, ignored and violated their rights.

How could the church ignore a right that didn't yet exist?

rl> In view of the fact that the heretics did not have a right not to
rl> be tortured, would this mean that there was nothing "bad" about
rl> their painful treatment?

gp> Russell, please don't attempt to read my mind and answer 
gp> questions for me.  If you do not think the heritics had the right 
gp> to be tortured than it is another inconsistance in your 
gp> arguements .  

In essence, I consider torture to be bad because it hurts.   You're
the one who claimed that torture was bad because it allegedly violates
a set of laws.  As I've pointed out, however, such laws didn't
exist in the middle ages.  Would this mean that medieval torture was
perfectly ok?

gp> I have two questions for you Russell.
gp> 
gp> Do you eat or wear any animal products?

Occasionally.  I don't own any leather apparel apart from shoes,
and it's been seven or eight years since I made such purchases.
I suppose I eat meat once or twice a year, although I've gone for
four or five year periods without knowingly consuming any meat
whatsoever.

gp> If so how can you justify this based on your animal rights 
gp> philosophy?

It's a lesser of the evils situation, sorta like your offer to sell
your body for a million bucks in order to feed starving kids.   I
truly do not enjoy meat, and mentally respond to it the same way
you might react to a plate of sheep eyeballs and couscous or a 
big steaming platter of freshly boiled Louisiana mudbugs.

gp> One other question?  Will you please send me some information 
gp> regarding the cat shooting study?  A name .  A date.  A research 
gp> institution.  Anything.  I'm will to go to the library and do the 
gp> leg work to find references but I need a starting point.  This is 
gp> my third request.  

Patience please.  I'm going to post a half-dozen articles on this
topic when I have a chance to do some extensive keyboarding.

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