From: gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 92 08:06:24 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Sep4.141429.27810@spdc.ti.com> <1992Sep4.191956.12902@clpd.kodak.com>

Robert Black  black@serum.kodak.com  writes * 
> >In article <64032@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com
> >(Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:

[...]

rb>
> >Great.  But there are only three defenses of animal killing which I have
> >found convincing in all the verbiage that has been posted on the
> >subject: (1) self-defense or defense of another; (2) subsistence; (3)
> >It's the most humane way or the only practical way to control
> >populations (with the stipulation that we will always be looking to find
> >a better way).  

[...]

ts>
> Most forms of hunting satisfy #2 or #3.  Some forms satisfy both.  
> Although, your definition of subsistence may be a little different 
> from mine.  I don't care what you think about our traditions.  The
> reason I brought them up is so you could understand why we fight so
> hard to preserve them.  

* I used subsistence here as a shorthand for "must hunt in order to avoid
* starvation" not as an attempt to inclusively justify all aboriginal
* hunting, as another poster replying to this had concluded.  Within this
* definition, I don't think #2 applies very often, even for the remaining
* aboriginal cultures. 

Does that mean that as long as there are plants to eat, you do not feel 
hunting for subsistence is justified?  If the answer to the previous 
question is yes, can I also assume that you also feel consumption
of domestically raised animals is wrong under the same circumstances?    

*I appreciate that your traditions are important to you, but they alone
* do not justify hunting in any objective sense.

I just wanted to let you know what you are up against.

ts> >You still haven't justified animals having rights.  
> 
rb> >So you say.  I've cited references.  And since the word rights is a
> >source of much confusion and has been debated at length by many great
> >philosophers over the ages, I find it more productive to determine on
> >what principle a particular individual bases his acceptance of human
> >rights.  Starting from that point, then we can see whether consistent
> >application of that principle requires the inclusion or exclusion of
> >animal rights.  I've presented questions designed to elicit this
> >information and those questions went unanswered.
> 
ts> I think I've answered most of your questions.  Furthermore, I spent 
> a great deal of time explaining the teachings and personal experiences 
> that form the basis for my views.  

* These are a few of the unanswered questions:

*1. What does "dominion" mean in the bible?  Does the assignment of it
*to humans really rule out recognition of rights for animals?

In a previous post I said, "I view mans role as benevolent master.  We 
were created in God's image and given this earth to rule over".  To me
this is a clear indication that man is special and therefore has rights.  
  
*2. Why shouldn't Genesis 1:29 be interpreted as promoting a vegetarian
*diet as the original diet for humanity?  Why shouldn't any later
*apparently conflicting dietary dictums be seen strictly as a consequence
*of man's own perfidy?

I already answered this one.  However if you insist on seeing the my answer 
again here it is:

"The fall occurred after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and  acquired 
the ability to know good from evil.  Because, they now had the ability to 
know right from wrong they were responsible for their actions.  I fail to see 
how this has anything to do with the consumption of meat."

*3.  Suppose some lives are more "valuable" than others (whatever that
*means - keep in mind that you introduced the term in arguing against
*animal rights).  How does this rule out rights for "less valuable"
*creatures?

I already answered this one too.  

"For me the defining characteristic that separates humans from 
animals is the ability to tell right from wrong.  You have to admit 
that the ability evaluate our actions from a moral perspective is 
uniquely human. That ability more than anything else separates 
humans from animals and justifies humans having rights."  


*4. How does the fact that some animals eat other animals prove that it's okay
*for humans to do so?  How does the fact that something is "quite natural"
*support the contention that it's "not wrong?"

*5. If the animals are inferior to us, then why should we use them as ethical
*models to guide us in determining what's right and wrong? On the other
*hand if the animals are equal or superior to us to the extent that they
*serve as models of ethical behavior as you are implying, then how can we
*justify killing and eating them?

Again I have answered these questions before.

"I used that example to demonstrate that we are part of the
same food chain as the animals.  Some animals serve as 
food for other species.  Like our own mortality, this is one 
of the basic facts of our existence.  Like it or not it is how 
the world works."

These may not have been the answers you were looking for.  But I have
answered your questions.    

ts> You will note that I emphasized the word  unnecessary.  
> I see a great deal of difference between shooting a pheasant for dinner 
> and setting a dog on fire just to watch it burn.  We both agree that 
> humans have certain rights that can't be violated for any reason.  For 
> me the defining characteristic that separates humans from animals is the
> ability to tell right from wrong.  You have to admit that the ability
> evaluate our actions from a moral perspective is uniquely human. That
> ability more than anything else separates humans from animals and 
> justifies humans having rights.  

*That ability confers responsibilities, not rights, on humans.  You're
*falling into a common trap, which historically dates back at least to
*the sophists of ancient Rome.  That trap is, of course, the equating of
*moral agents with moral objects. 

*A moral agent is one whose actions and intentions can be judged as right
*or wrong, good or bad, and who can and should be held accountable.  A
*moral object is one to whom moral obligations are directly due owing to
*its nature.  A moral agent has certain moral obligations; a moral object
*has certain moral rights. 

*Adult humans are generally both moral agents and moral objects.  They
*have rights and obligations that are pretty much reciprocal.  But the
*two don't always totally overlap so cleanly.  We know this because, for
*example, a child has more rights in his capacity as a moral object than
*he has corresponding obligations in his capacity as a moral agent.  The
*same is true of animals.  For them as for children, there is not an
*exact symmetry between rights and obligations. 

Human children will grow up to become human adults with the ability to 
evaluate their actions on a moral basis.  Animals on the other hand, 
will never be able to do this.  Also some of the child's responsibilities
are assumed by the child's parents.  

*Another way of saying it is that a being may lack the characteristics
*necessary for having a certain obligation and yet possess the
*characteristics necessary to qualify as a beneficiary of that obligation.

I'm not sure that it's so easy to separate rights from responsibilities.
If any of us are to benefit from our rights, others must respect them.    
We humans can loose our rights as a consequence of our actions  For 
example a someone who commits violent crimes can expect to loose 
his freedom and possibly his life.  If we sever rights from 
responsibilities, how are we to protect our rights from those who 
would violate them?

> >Having said that, I will add that "rights" seems like the natural word
> >to me, but I'm not inexorably tied into a particular word.  It's the
> >idea that's important.  If you find yourself choking on the word
> >"rights" in this context, feel free to suggest another word as long as
> >it retains the same connotations.
> 
> Changing the word wont change my mind.

*But don't you agree that animals have some inherent qualities that make
*it wrong for humans to do certain things to animals? Same for humans. 
*It's generally wrong for one human to torture another human, because of
*the effects on the victim.  In political theory and terminology, we could
*say that the victim has the right to not be tortured.  If it's also
*wrong for humans to torture animals, then why doesn't the same political
*terminology (used to express the same principle) apply here as well?

Just because certain behavior towards animals is wrong under certain 
circumstances, doesn't mean that animals have rights.   We should not 
torture animals is because it is wrong to delight in suffering.  This does 
not mean animals have rights.  The ideal we are striving for is humane 
treatment of animals while still providing for the needs and goals of 
humans.  This is a far cry from saying that the animals have rights that
humans can't violate for any reason.

You may recall in a previous posting I pointed out the difference 
between setting a dog on fire just to watch it burn and shooting a 
pheasant for dinner.  In the first example an animal is killed because 
a human delights is seeing it suffer.  In the second example, an 
animal is killed to fulfill a need or desire of a human.  

You cited "subsistence" as a valid reason for hunting.  Obviously you 
feel that at some point the needs of humans take priority over the 
so-called rights of animals.  Although we are in disagreement as to 
where the line should be drawn.

> >>I view the concept of animal rights in an 
> >>entirely different light.  When  you say animals have rights you are 
> >>also saying animal are our equals.
> 
rb> >No, I would only be saying that animals are our equals if I were to
> >claim that all animals had exactly the same identical rights as humans.
> >I haven't said that.
> 
ts> I would like to know exactly what rights you feel that animal have

* - right not to be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatment.

How do you define cruel and  inhumane?

* - right not to be exploited for human enjoyment.

Would keeping an animal as a pet qualify as exploitation for 
human enjoyment?  If not, why?

* - right to be treated as having value in and of themselves and not as simple
*    resources.

ts> and what characteristics of the animals justify those rights. Also,

*In <1992Aug7.173119.4394@clpd.kodak.com>, I already attempted one answer 
*to this, when I cited Reverand Andrew Linzey's discussion of Tom Regan's
*subjects-of-a-life criterion.  Animals have these characteristics:

*      - beliefs and desires.

Are animals really capable of having beliefs?

*      - perception, memory, and a sense of the future including their own.

I'm not to sure about this one either.  It seems to me that animals 
live for the moment and have no perception of the future.

*      - emotional life with feelings of pleasure and pain.
*      - preferences and welfare interests.
*      - ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals.
*      - a psychological identity over time.
*      - an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life
*         fares well or ill for them logically independently of their
*         utility for others and logically independently of their being
*         the object of anyone else's interest.

* An abbreviated version would be consciousness, awareness, sentience ... 
* that is, precisely those qualities of humans which make what happens to
* them relevant to them. 

Don't fish and insects have at least some of these qualities?  How 
about some insects.  If you swat a fly does it experience pain?  
Does it experience fear in that last fleeting second?  If your answer
to both questions is no, why does a fly try to escape when I trap it
in my hand?  Using your criteria one would have to concede that the 
fly has rights.   

By severing rights from responsibilities and expanding the concept 
of rights to animals, you are attempting to change our whole view of 
the world around us.   Once you have let this genie out of it's bottle, 
where will we draw the line?  After animal rights, what comes next?  
Fish rights?  Bug rights?  

ts> what characteristics of animals prevent them from having the exact 
> same rights as humans.  

*A key one would be the inability to use human language proficiently.
*Note that this inability also applies to some humans and yet we don't
*deny all rights to these humans.

We are getting to the point where machines (computers specifically)
can use human language.  However we both agree that machines 
will never have rights.    

Isn't the ability to comprehend abstract concepts such as morality
a better charachteristic to separate people from animals.

ts> 
> >>  It goes against everything I believe.
> 
rb> >This appears to be a statement of your own mental (and unreasoning)
> >resistance to a new idea.  It's not a viable or credible argument for
> >denying that animals have rights.  Isn't this an example of the "blind
> >emotion" that you criticize down below?
> 
ts> No it is not blind emotion.  It is the culmination of everything I have
> learned up to this point in my lifetime.  

*Perhaps, but when one says that humans have certain responsibilities and
*duties toward animals, and that these responsibilities and duties derive
*from inherent characteristics of the animals, then it seems to me that
*you're tacitly recognizing animal rights.

Wrong.  It means that I acknowledge certain behavior towards animals 
under certain circumstances is inappropriate.  This derives more from 
the characteristics of humans than it does from the characteristics 
of animals.  

rb> >>*Secondly, your analogy falls apart because, the right that you're
> >>*claiming involves a third party.  Consider the case of a cannibal who
> >>*recognizes your right to abstain from eating human flesh.  All he asks
> >>*of you is to recognize his right to decide this issue for himself and
> >>*live according to his own beliefs.  What about a man who likes to beat
> >>*women? He recognizes your right not to do it and only asks that you
> >>*recognize his right to decide for himself?  Isn't it clear that when you
> >>*introduce a third party (i.e. a victim), the rules change?
> >>
ts> >>By inventing rights where they have do  not exist. You are attempting to 
> >>change the rules.
> 
rb> >No.  I'm attempting to apply rules in a consistent (and therefore fair)
> >fashion.  And these are not just any arbitrary rules, but rules that
> >most people claim to believe in.
> 
ts> These rules have been universally recognized as applying to humans only.  
> When you attempt to apply these rules to animals you are changing them.

*In the past these rules were not recognized as applying to certain
*classes of humans.  Gradually over time we realized the inconsistency in
*this.  The animal rights movement is an extension of this ongoing
*process of resolving the inconsistencies in our treatment of conscious
*feeling beings. 

You are still changing the rules by applying them to animals.  If 
the rules are universally recognized as applying to humans, how can 
we be inconsistent by not applying them to animals.  Unless
of course, you change the rules. 

So where does this "process" end?  Is going to end with animals?  
Or will it move on to fish, insects and inevitably plants?  If it is 
going to stop at animals please explain why?

I[... deleted discussion of hunt sabotage techniques ...]

rb> >While not condoning these types of actions, I would ask these questions:
> >(1) Are they calling for any violence or use of force against hunters?
> >(2) If they were urging these sabotage actions to prevent loss of human
> >life - and given their belief that animals have a right to not be
> >subjected to arbitrary termination of life - wouldn't you say they were
> >acting quite moderately by not attacking the hunters directly?
> 
ts> I certainly wouldn't call those actions "moderate."  I think the 
> appropriate terms here are trespassing and vandalism.  Would PETA 
> members be justified in destroying coyote dens and hawk nests in 
> order to "save lives"?    

*Of course not, but that's irrelevant.  Does the PETA pamphlet call for
*destroying hunters' homes and lodges?

It is relevant.  If PETA is so concerned about saving animal lives,
why shouldn't they should take action against non-human predators 
too?  I haven't heard of any hunting lodges being destroyed -- yet.  
I have read accounts of hunters vehicles being vandalized.  Although, 
I don't know whether the vandals in this case were PETA members.  

*Although I don't condone property destruction at all, it seems like
*these actions are relatively moderate given the basic assumptions
*under which the hunt saboteurs are operating.

I'm sure the members of operation rescue view their actions as being
moderate given the their basic assumptions.  In reality they are a 
radical group attempting to impose  it's values upon the rest of us.  
PETA behaves the same way.  

ts> >>  This brochure also encourages activists "During actual 
> >>hunts, assemble a group of people early in the morning and use air 
> >>horns and whistles to warn animal into hiding."  
> 
rb> >These efforts are evidently aimed at avoiding death of animals and
> >are not targeted toward hunters directly.  As such I don't see them
> >per se as examples of blind emotion, lies, or intimidation - simply
> >attempts to warn off potential victims whose lives are in danger.
> 
ts> Then why are these actions most likely to occur during opening day or 
> during special hunts?  Also, why is it that they almost always notify 
> the press in advance of these actions?  

*To publicize the cause, I would presume.  I still don't see how using
*horns and whistles to warn animals of impending danger can be considered
"blind emotion, lies, and intimidation."

PETA's opening day  tactics are just a small part of the total program.  

ts> >>I realize PETA doesn't 
> >>speak for the entire animal rights movement but they are one of the 
> >>larger and more vocal groups out there.
> >>
> >>It is because of the increasing militancy of groups like PETA, I view 
> >>the animal rights movement as a direct threat to my values and my freedom.
> >>Like many of my fellow hunters,  I have a strong desire for my children 
> >>to enjoy the wild places, the freedoms  and traditions  I have enjoyed.  
> >>I was raised to believe that in America we  have the right to live 
> >>according to our own beliefs not those of a radical minority.
> 
rb> >This is not technically true, as you undoubtedly know.  You do not have
> >unlimited unfettered rights to live according to your own beliefs when
> >these beliefs infringe on the rights of others.  
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ts> This has always meant the rights of other people not animals.  It seems to 
> me that the views of groups like PETA definitely infringe on the rights
> of others -- in this case others means people.

*Yes, but to PETA, the term "others" includes more than just humans. 
*From that perspective, I would assume that the infringement on rights of
*humans (i.e.  hunters in this case) is justified by the prior
*infringement by these humans on the rights of some nonhumans.  If you
*accept their basic premise (and I realize that you don't - but if you
*did), don't their actions seem really quite logical and moderate, as
*long as they refrain from any aggressive actions directly against the
*hunters?

Yeah right.  And the PLO thinks their actions are quite moderate and
logical due to the prior infringement by the Israelis.  If someone
believes in a cause strongly enough they can justify anything to 
themselves.  Just because PETA's members believe they are justified 
doesn't mean they have the right to  infringe on the rights of  others.
In reality, PETA's actions are anything but moderate.

rb> >One of the major points of disagreement within this newsgroup is over the 
> >issue of who is included within this class of others.
> 
ts> Don't you mean WHAT is included included within this class of others.
 
*No.  "What" refers to inanimate objects.  "Who" refers to living beings.

Who refers to people.  What refers to everything else.

Tom Swenson

Freedom of the press is great.  If YOU own the press.