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)