From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: moral Judgements
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:14:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.203512.7328@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) 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. 
>
>I appreciate that your traditions are important to you, but they alone
>do not justify hunting in any objective sense.
>
>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?
>

Wait a minute! Are you implying our wildlife management should be based on
the Christian bible?

>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 am outraged and insulted that anyone would bring the bible into an otherwise
intelligent discussion. I think I'd better quit this response before I say 
something I may later regret.

>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?
>
>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?
>
>ts> 
>> >>Because some animals 
>> >>can feel pain,  our sense of decency and compassion says we should not 
>> >>inflict UNNECESSARY pain.  
>> 
>rb> >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."
>> 
>ts> Why do our moral attitudes towards animals have do be an all or nothing
>> propisition?  
>
>They don't need to be.  Many rights that humans have are irrelevant to
>animals.
>

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals