From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Moral Judgements
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:55:56 GMT

In article <64032@cup.portal.com> gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson) writes:
>David Caruso II writes >>>>
>Thomas Alan Swenson responds to David >>>
>Robert Black responds to Thomas Alan Swenson >>
>Thomas Alan Swenson responds to Black >
>Robert Black responds to Tom Swenson *
>
>I deleted most of this stuff because we've seen it all before and 
>it wastes bandwidth.  

Really? All of it has been seen before? I wrote some things I've never
written before or seen posted in this newsgroup since becoming a regular
reader in January.  Who's been coming up with my ideas before I think of
them? :-) Anyway this seems like quite a cavalier dismissal of the
numerous questions, comments, and counterpoints which I so painstakingly
composed in response to your previous statements. 

>
>In reply to Robert Blacks religious arguments:
>
>I view mans role as benevolent master.  We were created in God's image and 
>given this earth to rule over.  This is not to say that it's O.K. to set  
>animals on fire for our amusement.  Someone who sets an animal on fire 
>because he delights in suffering, degrades himself.  As a hunter I admire 
>and appreciate the game I hunt and strive to minimize suffering.  The act 
>of killing game is a very small portion of the total experience.

Small to the killer, not necessarily small to the game.

>  The 
>responsibility is for the whole earth not just the animals.
>
>While we are on the subject of stewardship.  Hunters feel a strong sense 
>of stewardship. This responsibility extends far beyond the animals.  It  
>includes the wild places we hunt in and the preservation of our traditions.
>This why hunters have supported conservation long before it was the 
>"politically correct" thing to do.  It is also why so many hunters fight 
>so passionately to preserve our rights and continue our traditions.  
>We want our children and grand children to enjoy the things we have 
>enjoyed.    

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).  

If you can satisfy any one of these three conditions, then we don't have
an argument.  But to say that killing animals is part of a tradition and
is automatically justifiable on that basis is not very convincing to me. 
Throwing goats off Spanish towers during festivals is a tradition.  That
does not imply that the practice (sport?) should be continued. 

>
>You still haven't justified animals having rights.  

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.

>Because some animals 
>can feel pain,  our sense of decency and compassion says we should not 
>inflict UNNECESSARY pain.  

Your sense of decency and compassion guides you, but what about those
who don't share your sense of decency and compassion?  On what grounds
do you tell them that they can not torture animals for their amusement?
... other than by using reasons that derive from the inherent characteristics
of the animals themselves?  And once you invoke the inherent qualities
of the animals then, it seems to me, you're talking about that quality
which we know as "rights."

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.

>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.

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.

>  It goes against everything I believe.

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?

>
>*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?
>
>By inventing rights where they have do  not exist. You are attempting to 
>change the rules.

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.

>
>Suppose I was to decide that trees have a right to life?

Then to convince anyone, you would have to use facts and logic to
support your contention. ... just as the animal rights philosophers
like Tom Regan (see THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS) have done.  The
conclusions about animal rights are not arbitrary ones; they're based
on reason.  You and others may not agree with the reasoning, but it
definitely was not a case of some guy waking up one day and "deciding"
that animals have a right to life and then starting a movement to
force his "decision" on others.

If you have a convincing case, your chance for fame (or notoriety)
awaits you when you finish writing THE CASE FOR ARBOREAL RIGHTS. :-)

>  Does that give 
>me the right to force you to stop using wood and paper?  Don't laugh, 
>there are people out there who actually believe trees have rights.   

Perhaps, but I haven't heard of them.  Tell us more.

>Some of them have been known to drive steel spikes into trees causing 
>serious injury to anyone who cuts into one with a chain saw.  

This doesn't make sense.  Wouldn't these putative tree rights include
the right of a tree to not have a spike driven into it? The only thing I
can figure here is that you're referring to a couple of alleged
incidents involving Earth First! a few years ago.  If so, I believe that
these were misguided attempts to stop environmental destruction and save
the "wild places" that you treasure, not moves to prevent violations of
"tree rights."

>
>*If you're correct in deducing the ultimate goal, is that a bad goal if
>*it's accomplished through persuasion by the use of facts and reason?
>
>The problem is some animal rights groups are not using facts and reason.  
>They are using blind emotion, lies and intimidation to accomplish their 
>goals.  I have a copy of a pamphlet published by People for the Ethical 
>Treatment of Animals entitled "How to Sabotage Hunts A Guide for 
>Defending Wildlife."  It starts out "A small but violent minority known 
>as American hunters..."  

Most likely they are making this statement from the animals' view -
hence the use of the word "violent".  Since I'm not a PETA member (let
alone a member of their editorial board) I'm merely speculating here. 
But if someone is trying to kill you, wouldn't you think of him or her
as violent?

>
>Among the tactics advocated are "Plaster the floors of hunting blinds 
>with cow dung, rotten eggs, or other unpleasant substances.  Tear down 
>tree stands."

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?

>  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."  

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.

You may say that these people are misguided (by preventing deaths
now, you may say, they are causing more suffering and worse deaths
later).  But as long as they are not harassing or threatening hunters
and as long as they are not trespassing, then why wouldn't they have 
the same right to be there as a hunter would?

>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.

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.  One of the major
points of disagreement within this newsgroup is over the issue of
who is included within this class of others.

[...]

>Tom Swenson
>Freedom of the press is great -- If YOU own the press!

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals