From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Plant/animal similarities
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:10:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.013124.4246@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.180401.27092@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Dec18.142408.19094@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:

For context, here is my previous statement:

  "If you really believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity
   to be assigned a rough moral equivalence, how do you propose to redress
   the current imbalance which favors animals? ..."

>
>>>	You must be taking lessons from Russell...he makes unjustified
>>>	assumptions, too.  ...
>>
>>The only assumption is the implied one in the "If" clause of the first
>>sentence.
>
>	Is there some number of assumptions required before any can be called
>	"unjustified?"

1

>>By saying that it's unjustified, you're aligning yourself
>>with those who deny a rough moral equivalence between animals and
>>plants.   [...]
>
>	No, I'm not making any moral statements at all.  I'm merely saying
>	that dismissal of plants (and "lower" animals) as physiologically
>	"inferior" may be a bit hasty, based on the tidbits of knowledge we
>	have to date.

My implied assumption was this: 

	You believe that animals and plants have sufficient similarity 
	to be assigned a rough moral equivalence.

You've now pronounced this assumption to be "unjustified."  This seems
to imply that either (1) you believe animals and plants don't have said
similarity, or (2) you plead ignorance about whether or not they do. 

If (1) is true, then doesn't it seem reasonable to relegate plants to a
category whose members are less deserving of moral consideration than
the category to which animals are relegated? ...and to subsequently
bring a swift termination to these apparent plant/animal ethical
tergiversations that have surfaced frequently in the past?

>
>>>>You seem to be equating "unfeeling" with "ethically irrelevant."  Is this
>>>>an accurate inference?  IYO then does "feeling" equate to "ethically
>>>>relevant?"
>>>
>>>	No, AR advocates and "ethical" vegetarians have equated "unfeeling"
>>>	with "ethically irrelevant."  I've merely restated this claim, and
>>>	offered some evidence which shows that plants may not be as far
>>>	removed from animals as those groups would like to believe, and
>>>	that plants are not "unfeeling."  Since you are certainly a member
>>>	of the first group, if not the second, I ask YOU, "Does 'feeling'
>>>	equate to 'ethically relevant?'"
>>
>>"Equate" may be too strong a word to characterize the relationship. 
>>"Linkage" might be better. 
>
>	Why the ambivalence?  And how does it "unlink" when you get to
>	garden slugs and amoebas?

The ambivalence stems from potential exploitation of ambiguity in the
term 'feeling.' There seems to be a linkage between one's ability to
suffer and one's worthiness of being an object of 'ethically relevant'
treatment.  The greater the ability, the tighter the linkage. 

>
>>>>If there are similarities between plants and nonhuman animals which "may
>>>>preclude simple relegation of plants to the [ethically irrelevant]
>>>>category", then aren't there similarities between nonhuman animals and
>>>>human animals, which actually *do* preclude simple relegation of animals
>>>>to the ethically irrelevant category?
>>>
>>>	What a silly question: of COURSE there are.  Who ever said
>>>	otherwise?
>>
>>Again would you be surprised that your past postings could have been
>>interpreted to be a defense of the view that animals and plants should
>>be relegated to equivalent moral categories?
>
>	You asked, in essence, "Aren't non-human and human animals
>	sufficiently similar that we should be somewhat concerned with
>	their welfare?"  You asked nothing about plants; I answered in
>	the affirmative.  There is nothing mysterious and misleading
>	about that.

Actually I was asking a little more than that.  I was looking for an
acknowledgement that stronger ethical claims can be made on behalf of
animals than on behalf of plants.

---
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