From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 04:48:18 GMT

In <1993Jan5.220804.26280@clpd.kodak.com>, Bob Black writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.010816.26470@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com 
writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.193924.21805@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com 
(Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>>>I don't know when the linkage dissolves.  It currently is beyond the
>>>scope of my ability to determine.  But that doesn't matter.  We can see
>>>many obvious cases where it does not dissolve.  And there's enough
>>>debate about those cases to last us all for a while. 
>>
>>      How conveniently fuzzy.  Of course, it DOES allow us to kill roaches
>>      with abandon while rushing to the defense of mice.
>
>Many of us would undoubtedly prefer that the world confront us with more
>black-and-white situations instead of fuzzy ones.  In any event, the
>occurrence of fuzziness is not a matter of "convenience" but an inherent
>feature of the world in which we find ourselves.

        [NOTE: the "you" in the following paragraphs is generic.]

        Perhaps, but it's not necessary, or even desirable, in this area.
        The fuzziness of thought so often in evidence by the claimants of
        the ethically vegetarian high ground is troubling.  How do you know
        what's an ethically acceptable meal if you can't even describe the
        process by which you assign ethical value to non-human species?  You
        engage in the ludicrously struthious practice of limiting your 
        ethical guessing game to the extreme ends of the scale of evolu-
        tionary complexity while leaving the huge majority of species with
        which we share the planet in a kind of ethical limbo and claiming
        not only that you are "right," but that those who disagree are
        "wrong" on some nebulous "absolute" scale of your own creation.

        You claim that these choices are not arbitrary, yet you supply us
        with no evidence to dispute that claim, retreating, instead, to the
        safety of your own opinions, which, by definition, are most
        definitely arbitrary.  You claim that humans are no "better" than
        any other animal, yet you presume, as a human, to determine which
        non-human species are ethically relevant and which are not...and
        not only for yourself, but even for those around you who choose
        to disagree.

[...]

>>>So it's my impression that you wish to restrict your participation to
>>>the domain of scientific data and prefer not to take a position on any
>>>ethical implications of that data?  You are content to discuss the
>>>obvious truth that people DO eat dead plants and animals without further
>>>inquiry?
>>
>>      That WAS my intent when I posted the original excerpt from the
>>      study.  If you want to discuss the ethics of vegetarianism vs.
>>      omnivory, then first tell me this: what are the ethics surrounding
>>      my consumption of garden slugs, beetles, and amoebae?
>
>Since the extent to which these three lifeforms can be
>subjects-of-a-life with a capacity to experience suffering and
>deprivation is less than many other lifeforms, ....

        "Less than?!?"  I'm about to EAT this thing and all you can tell
        me is "less than?!"

        What I want to know is where does "less than" become "not at all" so
        I can eat lunch and remain ethically correct!

>.... then it makes sense to
>conclude that they merit lesser ethical consideration ....

        "Lesser ethical consideration?!?"  I'm about to EAT this thing and
        all you can tell me is "lesser ethical consideration?!"

        What I want to know is where does "lesser ethical consideration"
        become "no ethical consideration" so I can eat lunch and remain
        ethically correct!

>.... and are therefore more suitable objects of prandial undertakings.

        "More suitable?!?"  I'm about to EAT this thing and all you can
        tell me is "more suitable?!"

        What I want to know is where does "more suitable" become "suitable"
        so I can eat lunch and remain ethically correct!

>So eat hearty and feel
>at peace to continue unabated your consumption of them. 

        Not bloody likely with such a total lack of information.

>Now my turn to inquire about three lifeforms:  What are the ethics
>surrounding consumption of other humans, of monkeys, and of domestic
>cats?

        I suppose you really expect me to answer this, even after the
        waffle you served up.

        Cannibalism on a large scale is maladaptive behavior for any
        species.  Most human societies consider it unethical, but notably,
        the Anasazi apparently did not, nor did the Aztecs...of course
        both of these societies are now extinct, but I'm sure it has
        nothing to do with the practice of cannibalism.

        Monkeys and cats are up for grabs...unless, of course, you're
        limiting your discussion to the Western society in which we live.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals