> Dreamer responded: "Nope, I'm not saying you're a racist. I'm saying that
> usually
> when you treat one type of entity worse than another type of entity
> (let's just say "worse" means "in a way you would less like to be
> treated yourself), you more likely than not value the former entitly
> less than the latter, all protests to the contrary. The example of
> southern segregation was offered by way of analogy rather than logical
> proof."
>
> Bissell here: An analogy usually means "a point by point" comparason. Your
> intent seems to be, IMO, to show that the way I value animals is somehow
> "wrong" because I am willing to actively take part in their death, which is
> something I won't do with humans.
Dreamer: Nope, that's not my intent. I was responding to one simple
assertion that you made, namely, that hunters who mount their victims'
heads on the wall do not value their victims' less than their own
children -- they only value them differently. I think they probably
value them less, much less. I didn't even say that it was wrong to
value animals less. My only intent was to clarify that they are being
valued less, so that any discussion will focus on the justifications for
valuing them less rather than the false assumption that they are valued
equivalently.
Bissell : Because you are correct that valuing
> different groups of humans differently than your own group is morally wrong
> does not lead to the conclusion that *all* entities have to be valued the
> same.
Dreamer: Obviously.
Bissell: This is the same trick of rhetoric that Singer and others in
the
> Animal Rights area have been using for decades. No, I do not *want* a lion
> to kill and eat me. That does not lead to the conclusion that it is wrong
> for me to kill and eat a deer.
Dreamer: No, but it might support the conclusion that, when you kill and
eat the deer rather than humans, you are placing a lower value on the
concerns or rights of the deer than upon those of humans. I don't think
this is an extravagant claim for me to make.
Bissell: If you are serious about "do unto (all)
> others as you would have them do unto you," then you are forced to conclude
> that a lion that would kill and eat me is "morally" wrong, that is if you
> are really making an analogy, and not a trick of words.
> Right, right, the lion doesn't have a "choice," but what does that have to
> do with the analogy? Unless you meant to refer to "choice," which I don't
> see there.
Dreamer: Again, the analogy wasn't used to illustrate the immorality of
hunting, just the likely falseness of the claim (made several posts ago)
that hunted animals are valued "differently but equivalently" with
humans. My regrets if any misunderstanding arose.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|