From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human-centered point of view
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:15:09 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <AWERLING.92Apr2112348@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.100951.4692@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>awerling:
>>> First of all, I must point out that you use the word "we" an awful
>>> lot. This is understandable.  You are a member of the human race.  You
>>> like the idea of staying alive until a natural death.  You like
>>> society and civilization because that is what you are comfortable with
>>> and you probably couldn't imagine life--so to speak--without it.
> 
>> Interesting the way you string along from a few obvious statements to an 
>> unsubstantiated assumption about my ability, or lack thereof, to imagine 
>> things.  If your assumption is correct, that is, if I am unable to imagine 
>> life without society and civilization then why am I here arguing this?  I 
>> mean, after all, if I'm unable to concieve of the collapse of civilization, 
>> then I wouldn't be marshalling arguments in support of its continuance.  
>> Instead, I would be assuming that it always would continue.  The fact of 
>> the matter is that I *can* imagine its end all to vividly.
> 
> My phrase, "couldn't imagine life" was ill-chosen.  The meaning of it,
> however, is that the end of society as you know it is not desirable.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.  If I'm right, then I'll rephrase my
> question: why is human society worth preserving?

If this is what you meant then you are correct in saying your words were 
ill chosen.  I do find the end of society undesireable.  Highly so.

In a nutshell, I think society is worth preserving because it is a system 
whereby we regulate our behavior not by force (as is the *natural* way) but 
by law.  We place reason, not emotion, as being paramount.  I feel this is 
worth preserving.

> 
>>> 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. :-)
> 
> Come one.  You know I know that.  What I'm asking is why is human life
> on earth worth beans!

See above.

> 
>>>>The central idea of our systematic priority setting mechanism is to adopt a 
>>>>human centred viewpoint.  This is *vital* if we are to maintain a stable 
>>>>society in which people can flourish and prosper.
>>> 
>>> Once again, why do we want a society in which people can flourish and
>>> prosper?  Why is this necessary?
> 
>>Would *you* like to go live in a cave?  Return to nature?  If so, go right 
>>ahead.  Me?  I'll stay right here, thanks all the same.
> 
> O.K.  I think I understand where you're coming from.  You prefer a
> humancentric point of view because you are human and don't want to
> live in a cave.  I'm not being fascitious (sp?).

On that you are correct, but it goes farther than that.  I look around me 
at the world, as it currently exists, and I look back at the world as it 
has existed in the past, and I see that human beings have flourished and 
prospered to the degree that they have adapted their surroundings to fit 
them, rather than adapting to their surroundings.  Being human, I wish to 
flourish and prosper.  Therefore, I would like to avail myself of a 
dwelling constructed especially for human needs rather than rely on 
something that was created without any thought to human comfort.

> 
>>>>Frankly the impact of torturing lobsters for any reason what so ever is 
>>>>relatively minor when compared with other problems.  Consequently it is 
>>>>considered to be less important.
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Here's that shit again.  Why do you insist on this?  Because I don't
> agree with you on the value of human life?  I've given this *tons* of
> thought, I'll have you know.

To equate the death of a lobster with the death of a human being on a 
cosmic level is crap.  In all likelyhood the human being will have a far 
greater positive or negative impact on the world if it survives than a 
lobster will.  To state otherwise seems, to me, to say that you've not 
given it much thought.

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> But *why*?  What is the *value* of human life?  It's technology?  Is
> that why we must preserve ourselves?  Is this why human interest must
> come first in the long run?  Why is this collective Macchiavellian
> point of view so prevalent for you?

Collective Macchiavellian point of view? Hardly.
 
> 
> --
> Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069