From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: More Violence(was Re: Posting fan mail fragments)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:58:20 GMT

>
>gp> Again I'll use the example of the woman who offerred the man $1,000,000 to
>gp> have sex with her. (roles changed this time as not to appear sexist.) The
>gp> man excepts. The woman offers $5 dollars for the same services.  He
>gp> replies "What kind of man do you think I am?"  To which she replies,
>gp> "we've already established that.  We're just bartering price now."
>gp> I posted this earlier but was out of town afterwards and did not see the
>gp> replies.  Please forgive the redundance.) 
>
RL>Your analogy seems simplistic to me.  It might be more 
RL>relevant if the "prostitute" were seeking a million dollars to 
RL>fund a program for feeding hungry kids.  In such a case, would 
Lprostitution be worse than the starvation of many thousands of human 
RL>beings?

Your missing the point Russell.  In the story above the loss of a
principle is at question.  It doesn't matter whether it $5 or$1,000,000
aids experiments or leather shoes. (or what the money is for)  The
principle has "already been established".  The "kind of person" that
accepts the money has already been elicited.  It doesn't matter how much or
what is why I find it hypocritical for someone to say they believe anumals
have rights, but still use animals for whatever purpose.
>
>rl> Now please answer my previous 
>rl> question: Is it always wrong to kill human beings?  Or, should we 
>rl> entertain exceptions in cases involving self-defense, medical 
>rl> treatment, criminal punishment, punishment for religious heresy, 
>rl> etc?  
>
>gp>  Not if the killing is justified.  (I'm ahead of you on this). Justified
>gp>  based on the norms and rules of society.
>
>What you're saying is that it's ok to engage in an action if you 
>believe that it's ok, but your argument is circular (ie you're
>begging the question).  If you're willing to accept the notion 
>that it's ok to kill human beings in certain instances, but not 
>in others, it seems kinda hypocritical for you to accuse me of 
>wavering simply because complications may alter my judgment of a
>particular action.  
>
>gp> Animals have no rights!  
>
>rl> Do dogs and cats have a right not to be tortured?
>
>gp> No.  But we don't have the right to intentional infic pain on 
>gp> them without justification.
>
RL>How does this differ from a "right"?   Would "justification" make
RL>it acceptable for you to kill a human being?   And, if so, would
RL>this mean that human beings do not have rights?
>
>gp> Rights are a human contraption and should only be applied to humans.
>
>rl> Why?

Russell, i hope you will agree with me on this definition of a right (if
not please find a dictionary.
    
    A right is a claim or potential claim that one party may exercise on
    another, based on laws and/or tradition.  

Some rights are founded in law (e.g trail by jury).  Some rights 
 entail both morals and law (theft and rape).  
Thus rights are  the invention of the human mind established in order to
promote harmonious interactions amoung people. They are not God-given or
inherant.  
In addition the granting of or claiming of rights, which encompases the  moral
and ethical standards on which the are based,  can only be done by beings
with the capacity to reason understand and and make moral judgements.  
Along with the acceptance of these rights the being must also
accept the the obligations that are associated with them.  That is, the
freedom of speech is a right however, the person must not abuse that right
by slandering others.  
Animals can niether claim rights or accept the responsibility associated
with them.  Animals lack the ability to make free moral judgements.  In
addition they are not capable of responding to or making moral claims,
hence they have no rights.  

Quote Carl Cohen (N.J.Med. vol.315(14) p. 865   

		The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend
		rules of duty, governing all including themselves.  In
		applying such rules, the holders of rights must
		reconizepossible conficts between what is in their own
		interest and what is just.  Only in a community of beings
		capable of self-restricting moral judgements can the
		concept of rights be correctly invoked.

This does not mean that we are free do do what we choose to other animals.
We do have obligations to animals but these obligations are not based on
the rights othe animals. No one will argue that I can morally go out and
start a dog on fire. I will concide an obligation to treat animals
humanely but this is based in obligation to uphold personal ethics rather
than an animals "right to life".

                                             Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals