From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human-centered point of view
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:36:41 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <_77tg#j@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.100951.4692@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <AWERLING.92Mar29221023@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>> In article <1992Mar25.104316.4525@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>> 
>>> John Robinson:
>>>>>I disagree with this statement very 
>>>>>strongly because I value human life considerably more than I animal life in
>>>>>general and crustation life in particular. 
>>> 
>>> Andrew Werling:
>>> -> Why (to both points)?  (I.E. animal life in general *and* crustacean
>>> -> life in particular).
>>> 
>>> robinson@ac.dal.ca (John Robinson) writes:
>>>>Because I think it is not only natural, but also ethical to value highly 
>>>>complex and evolved life forms more than less complex and evolved life forms. 
>>>>I consider animal life to be more highly evolved than crustacean life and 
>>>>human life substantially more evolved than either.
>>> 
>>> So it is the natural and ethical thing to do to value these particular
>>> life forms over others.  "Highly complex and evolved" seems like you
>>> took an arbitrary class (if you will) of lifeforms and segregated them
>>> out as special.  Why do you do that?
>>
>>Actually, if you re-read my statement you'll see that I did not pick out 
>>one class of animals and segregated them as special.  I described a 
>>continuum.  We at the moment seem to be very near one end of it.
>>
> But why that particular continuum?  And how are we more complex than
> any other mammal? (We are more complex than shellfish, granted)
> Primates are also among the most primitive mammals, right after egg
> layers, marsupials and shrews.

Well, I don't see any other mamals developing any sort of technology.  This 
bespeaks a high degree of complexity to me.

>   
>>>>In an ideal world, all transgressors would eventually be caught and dealt 
>>>>with.  This world is far from ideal.  In such a situation it is necessary 
>>>>to set priorities, and it is important to have some systematic foundation 
>>>>for those priorities.        ^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because if you don't have a systematic foundation for your priorities you 
>>will set priorities in a haphazard fashion.  I would think that would be 
>>fairly obvious.
>>
> If haphazzard priorities dont bother a particular individual, what would
> make them bad?  

I don't recall saying they were bad.  It is undesireable because it is less 
consistent and less efficient.

> 
>>>>The first point of our systematic foundation is the value of *human* life.  
>>>>Given our limited resources, it seems important that we place that above 
>>>>all else and give special attention to those among us who do *not* value 
>>>>human life.  To see why this is necessary, examine the consequences of not 
>>>>doing so.  Failure to make an effort to do so allows those who do not value 
>>>>human life to roam relatively free in society, safe from societal 
>>>>retalliation.  These people go around killing, maiming, raping, kidnapping 
>>>>and robbing others and generally making life difficult for the rest of us.  
>>>>In such an environment, commerce is stiffled and society as we know it 
>>>>would crumble.  So it would seem that we must pay particular attention to 
>>>>such individuals if we are to make any progress as a civilization.
>>> 
> As I understand it, the point of civilization was to maximize personal
> liberty for all its members.  Those who join give up certain liberties,
> in order to assure freedom from having others take those liberties at
> the members' expense.  
> 
>>> You have not explained the value of human life.  You have only told
>>> what will happen if we *don't* value it.  And, if we don't, society
>>> will cease to exist.  Will this really harm life on Earth?
>>
>>Well, it will really harm *human* life on Earth.  If you can't figure out 
>>why and how, I shan't bother to tell you. :-)
>>
> But assuming I don't think my own life is the most important thing in
> the universe, might it's loss improve the state of life in general?  Or
> that the loss of human life may not do more so?

I've never met anyone who can honestly say that they don't value their own 
life above all others.

>  
>>> Killing a human vs. killing lobster seem to me to have identical
>>> cosmic influence.  In either case, a being dies.  
>>
>>Then I don't think you've given it much thought.
>>
> One thousand years from now, who will care whether it was you or the 
> lobster that died?  Do you mourn for all the people who die each day?

Depends on what I do before I die.

>  
>>> In my opinion you have not shown adequate reason to stand up for a
>>> human centered viewpoint.  By the way, is euthanasia of humans in
>>> comas inexcusable (in relation to the statement you make about killing
>>> another human being)?
>>
>>I see.  Basically, I believe I said that if we do not adopt a human centred 
>>viewpoint, those things that we value (civilzation, society, medical care, 
>>the technology we are using to carry on this discussion, etc.) will cease 
>>to exist.  To me, that is reason enough.
>>
>>No.  Euthanasia of humans in comas is not acceptable to me.  There have 
>>been cases recorded of people who have emerged from commas after more than 
>>a decade.
>>
> And there are millions of cases of people who died from starvation for
> totally preventable reasons.  If we spent less energy on saving those
> with a slim chance of regaining any real life, we would have more for
> those we could more easily help.  Our resources are not infinite, so
> we must draw priorities.

Agreed.

>  
>>I do not feel that anyone has any business making suicide illegal.  If you 
>>really wish to take *your own* life, as far as I'm concerned, that is fine. 
>> Further along this line, if you wish to assist someone else, say someone 
>>dying of a terminal disease, from taking their life, that is fine too so 
>>long as they actually take their own life.  The action must be their own.  
>>To extend this just a teensy bit farther, I believe that families should 
>>have the right to terminate life support for their loved ones in situations 
>>where recovery is highly unlikely (massive brain damage for example).
>> 
> No.  Suicide as a viable option is not acceptable to me.  There have
> been cases recorded of people who tried to commit suicide while in a
> state of mental illness and regretted it later when they recovered.

Obviously we differ here. 

> 
> E.S.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals