From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:14:42 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.192338.24880@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> In <C1Dvw0.4oI@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>>Actually, we're trying to evaluate actions in terms of their 
>>"goodness" or "badness", and we're trying to determine whether or 
>>not our evaluations ought to be based on facts and reasons or 
>>mere beliefs (accepted at face value).  
> 
> Maybe that's YOU'RE goal.  What I'M trying to point out is that,
> regardless of your conclusions, what is "ethically acceptable"
> is a matter of opinion and consensus.  "Factually Correct" and
> "Ethically Acceptable" often have little to do with each other.
> 
> To use one of your favorite examples: slavery was undeniably
> "ethically correct" for the majority of plantation owners in
> the 18th and 19th centuries, but the premise on which it was
> based, that Africans were less intelligent, was clearly in 
> error.

The opinion that slavery was good was, indeed, widespread in
the 18th century, and it was also widely believed in those
days that mental depressions were caused by an overabundance
of black bile.   However, it's important to make a distinction 
between beliefs and truths.  In reality, slavery was not a good
thing in the 18th century, and mental depression had nothing 
whatsoever to do with "black bile".

> ...
> Your problem is that you insist upon equating "Truth" with 
> "Ethically Acceptable," and they are not the same thing at all.

Not exactly.  Let's clarify a few points:

First, truth is an ethical good in the realm of ideas, just
as pleasure is an ethical good in the realm of feelings.  By
contrast, falsity and pain are "bad".

Second, I wholeheartedly agree that an idea isn't truthful
simply because it's believed.

Again, where we appear to disagree is that you seem to think that 
ethical ideas ought to be accepted as valid, simply because 
they're widely accepted by others, whereas I insist on examining the 
underlying facts and reasons.  

>>>Your persistent efforts are, perhaps, commendable to some, but the
>>>fact remains that, in our society, killing animals for food is
>>>ethically acceptable, however emotionally disturbing you might
>>>find the practice.
>>
>>It doesn't emotionally disturb me in the least.  I do, however,
>>think that it reflects a practice that will someday be regarded
>>as incredibly careless and stupid.
> 
> Perhaps.  The fact remains that, today, such practices are
> considered ethically acceptable by the society in which we
> live.  

So what?   The society in which we live accepts quite a few ideas 
that you would surely dismiss as mere superstition or ignorance.  
Don't you think it's hypocritical to criticize popular opinion
when it suits your pleasure (as you often do in sci.med) yet turn
around and invoke popular opinion when it suits your own prejudices
and superstitions?

> Your claim that you remain emotionally unmoved by
> these practices is categorically refuted by your past postings.

Do you really think you can determine the involvement of my 
emotions in a particular issue by reading my prose?  Let's 
assume, just for the sake of argument, that I'm an overly 
emotional man whereas you're calm and collected.  Given such an 
assumption, how do you account for the fact that you often 
describe me using perjorative labels like "flaming idiot" or 
"ignorant fool" or whatever, whereas I typically refrain from such 
practices?  [except where Banta's concerned, of course]

> Your avowed "concern" (remember that word?) for the welfare
> of research animals is but one example.

You mentioned this previously, and I replied that a writer's use 
of the word "concern" doesn't necessarily reflect an emotional 
state.  The fact that you would assume otherwise suggests that
you, yourself, are highly emotional, and hence, incapable of
appreciating the possibility of purely "intellectual" concerns.

>>>It is you who apparently cannot separate logic from emotion.
>>
>>I'm a grown man, Rich.  And I've been around the block, so to
>>speak, more times than I care to think about.  Please don't make 
>>assumptions about my emotions.
> 
> I have made no assumptions; you've demonstrated my point quite
> adequately on your own.  It is quite clear that you consider
> anything which tends to cause you to feel "concerned" to be,
> ipso facto, unethical.  

In raising questions about our treatment of animals, I point to 
facts and reasons...  not to my own "feelings".  In truth, it's 
you, rather than me, who believes that feelings like guilt or 
pleasure always form the basis of ethical judgments.   To illustrate,
it was you, not me, who was insisting a few weeks ago that 
emotional feelings formed the basis for prohibitions against
rape, bear-killing, etc, etc.

> Perhaps you need a few MORE trips around
> the proverbial block, so that you can separate feeling from 
> thought.

You're attacking a straw man, Rich.  I'm going to continue presenting
facts and reasons to support my side of the argument.  If you choose
to pretend that my arguments are emotional, rather than intellectual,
it's fine with me.  

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