[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Striking a blow against the predatory guilds

Pushing the limits of relevance here, but briefly . . .

First, thanks for reading. I became aware of this subject some months
ago and it deeply disturbed me, so an opportunity to articulate my
thoughts was  . . . well, appreciated, as you can see.

Anyway, I agree with most of what you said. However, I think you
mistook one of my points. I never assumed this writer wanted to
"punish" predators for "immoral" behavior. That went out of vogue in
the early 1900's. No, I was trying, in that section, to move past the
usual "this-isn't-practical" response I've seen in this issue and cut
to what I feel were more pressing moral questions about imposition
without consent, as you referenced yourself. In other words, my point
was simply that

1. Other animals have non-human psychologies

2. Other animals cannot articulate their psychologies to us, because
they cannot communicate intelligently and therefore cannot use
abstract ideas to convey subjective experience and preferences

3. Other animals cannot participate in reasoned consensus regarding
how they would like to go about fulfilling their needs

4. In terms of choosing courses of action, using (subjective,
evolutionarily incidental) human psychology as a substitute for mutual
agreement with other animals presumes that all other animals would
inherently prefer to follow the dictates of human psychology if given
the chance


5. Even humans frequently disagree with the subjective psychology of
fellow humans, a) meaning that human values are no absolute, universal
standard upon which to base the treatment any and all humans, much
less any and all animals, and b) rendering any claim of
absolutism-via-logical-deduction baseless insofar as values are,
inherently, subjective, just like all human perceptions and

Human societies can only move forward justly when group consensus
confirms that most group members share at least most of the same
subjective values, allowing those values to be acted upon with the
consent of the participants. If imposing drastic actions on humans who
disagree with said actions is morally questionable, then imposing
drastic actions on animals who have no voice or opportunity to even
signal disagreement must surely be questionable as well.

As far as I can figure, anyway.