From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:22:49 GMT

andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	Yes, but that concern is created and enforced by not only personal
>>but societal norms. ...

>	Perhaps, perhaps not. Many societal norms directly oppose concern
>	for others.  

	Then call it a negative enforcement.

>>In 1941, killing Japanese or Germans was
>>a moral act; today it is not.  Is it any wonder I choose to allow the
>>morality of an act to be judged based upon societal norms rather than my
>>own moral viewpoints?

>	Dan. You're missing the point. Under _your_ definition the 
>	perception of the ethics of an act may change. I accept that. 
>	I do _not_ accept your definition. The "ethical" I'm referring
>	to has no relation to perceptions of ethics, to divine punishment
>	for transgression, or to time.

	it has no relation to perceptions of ethics?  Then it cannot be
a definition of ethics -- your perceptions made the definition, and your
perceptions will judge actions according to that definition.  Ethics
are not binary things, they are more analog; a definition should
reflect this.  Webster seems to.

>>"How can *anybody* judge what is ethical without having both
>>personal and societal influences affecting that decision?"  If you

>	Easy. You define "ethical" in terms not involving your current
>	state, e.g., not involving your culture, your group, your time,
>	your nation, your religion, your gender, your sexual preferences, 
>	your species. Then you compare acts to this definition.

	What acts?  If you remove all context for an action, the action
itself becomes amoral; killing Germans is fine for WWII French, but if
we remove the act from the situation it becomes neither moral nor immoral
to perform that act, and thus neither ethical or unethical.  You might
as well judge the actions of inanimate objects.

>	Your first sentence, in which a past act is perceived as ethical
>	in the present, is not relevant to the question I posed: how do
>	you determine the ethical nature of _present_ standards?

	By the societal norms of today.

>	In order to discuss the ethics of the current standards,
>	"ethics" must be defined in some way not involving the current 
>	standards. Otherwise, your argument is circular, and circular
>	logic will only make you dizzy.

	And it cannot be done.

>>state you can, you aren't human.  If you cannot, you cannot judge
>>if an action is ethical or not.  Amazing double-edged sword, isn't it?

	The sword has sliced you.  

>>>     Your denial of the existence of a universal ethical standard is true
>>>     under your definition of "ethical." It is not true under mine ("avoiding
>>>     harming others"). Again, unless we agree on the definition, any
>>>     discussion is hopeless.

	Your definition is meaningless, for it cannot be applied in the manner
you refer to above.  All application of a definition is through perception,
which is colored and distorted through external influences.

>	My definition referred to avoiding harming others. It did not 
>	preclude there being some situations in which it was impossible 
>	to avoid harming others. If you accept my definition, we can
>	discuss whether harming animals is unavoidable for the ways in
>	which they are currently harmed.

	There are very few situations where harming others is not avoidable.
Let's take a simple self-defense case.  I'm walking to the local rifle range
for a little target practice, and am set upon by two armed muggers who
are likely to kill me.  If I kill both of them, is it moral?  If it is, then
your definition fails as the path of least harm is for me to be killed; if
it is not, your definition is flawed.

>	Incidentally, the nuclear horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can not
>	be classified as "saving lives." Japan had been trying to surrender
>	previously, under the same conditions under which it finally 
>	surrendered.

	No, there was no mention of unconditional surrender and disarmament,
with the US to provide military protection of the nation, nor of the
governmental reorganization.  To gain these, the purpose for the war to
some extent, would have required invasion and total conquering.  Thus,
the bombs saved lives in some estimates.  Either way, you're judging it
as a horror, while others may judge it as a life-saving use of weapons.
Doesn't this glaring difference of opinion (and for which nearly fifty
years of hindsight haven't made facts) point out the flaw in removing
context from the judgement of an action as ethical or no?

>>	No, your definition is not a perception, but is based upon one.
>>To wit, that harming others is to be avoided.  It is fairly easy to
>>show instances where harming others is good.

>	No, it is not. It is fairly easy to show instances where harming
>	others is unavoidable or preferable to the consequences -- not good.

	Based upon a perception of yours, that killing is never good.
I believe it is in certain instances.  Whenever you allow for an exception,
your definition is flawed.

>>	In some countries, the stealing of a loaf of bread is
>>punished by the removal of the right hand.  I challenge you to
>>find the ethical and unethical sides to this, and to then claim
>>one side is more ethical than the other.  I prefer to see both
>>sides as ethical for those of each culture.  My definition provides
>>this, and is the most universal and flexible because of it.

>	Yes, your definition is extremely flexible. It will bend whatever
>	way you want it. That is not necessarily a virtue.

	When judging actions, it most certainly is.

>	Is amputation an ethical response to a crime? My definition requires
>	knowledge of the harm which will result from both amputation and
>	absence of amputation. My guess would be that amputation would
>	usually be found to be overkill.

	It does quite effectively stop the problem of theft.  This may be
the more ethical view, as criminals violate the rights of others when they
engage in crime, but I prefer to let the society as a whole judge this.

>>	Of course I wish to see suffering lessened and even ended.
>	Oh, good, then you'll stop eating corpses right now. 

	Just as soon as I assume room temperature. ;-)

>>I do not, however, see myself as some benevolent dictator who can
>>decide such for others, and I cannot posess the clairvoyance to do so
>>according to an ethical code that will not appear for another millenia.
>>You, apparently, can, and quite frankly I don't think your claim of
>>being able to do so based on some "universal" ethical code is at all
>>valid or even likely.

>	If you'll recall, I began this discussion by attempting to find
>	a common ground, a base definition of "ethical" -- not by dictating
>	that definition to those such as yourself who do not accept it. 
>	You are suggesting that I am attempting to dictate others' actions;
>	in this discussion I am attempting merely to _influence_ others'
>	actions.

	Yet I note you share my same unwillingness to concede even a single
point detracting your position.  You can have your definition -- nobody will
take it away from you.  However, don't expect to find common ground when you
and your opponent are unwilling to step from your present positions.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals