Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!ISM780B!jim From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: animal vs human rights, morality Message-ID: <154@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 01:51:48 EST Article-I.D.: ISM780B.154 Posted: Sat Mar 9 01:51:48 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 05:18:16 EST Lines: 25 Nf-ID: #R:usl:-34200:ISM780B:27500065:000:1386 Nf-From: ISM780B!jim Mar 7 15:28:00 1985 >All this aside, I wholeheartedly agree with Michael that animals certainly >can feel pain as well as humans, and I cannot see why it can be wrong to >inflict such discomfort upon humans and not other animals. To extend this >into more contorversial terms, I see no reason why, if it's OK to use animals >for experimentation, humans should not also be used. Look, it is wrong if you think it is wrong. I don't mind stepping on ants, but I get sqeamish about the slaughter of doe-eyed baby seals. I think partly this is an irrational biologically determined reaction based on characteristics similar to baby humans, and partly I worry about the reduced distance from killing human beings given other people's overcoming of these biological reactions and the political atmosphere. >The only reason for such distinguishments is, I believe, a form of chauvinism >on the part of humans. I believe we extend our morality to those with whom we empathize. It's like Southern hospitality; it doesn't apply to easy riding longhairs. Morality is a survival mechanism selected for in the human creature. Since humans are a social species, some of their survival characteristics are group rather than individual characteristics. This is the reason "survival of the fittest" is such a deep misunderstanding of natural selection (Darwin certainly didn't use the term). -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)