throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (10/14/86)
>, >>> janw@inmet.UUCP (Jan Wasilewsky) >> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Now wait just a minute here. What exactly is Jan getting at? And is it anywhere near what Richard is getting at? Let's review: >>> the seal's right to have puppies is, under our political philosophy, >>> greater than your right to have children? What political philosophy is >>> that? > >>Clearly, a philosophy in which animal rights play a role. > > Not enough: they need to be greater than human rights. > >>I haven't said a thing about animal rights. > > No, but you talked of species preservation (a worthy goal, I > agree) as being a reason for restricting existing human rights OK. So. First we find that Richard is talking about animal species survival vs human proliferation, and that Jan is distorting this into talking about animal proliferation vs human proliferation. Why is this? Ah, well you see, one possibility is that then Jan can say that Richard claims that animal rights are "greater" than human rights, when he said no such thing. If one thinks the "right" of other species to *exist* *at* *all* should take prescedence over the human "right" to proliferate at will, this in *NO* *WAY* implies that one thinks animal rights in general take prescedence over human rights in general. Indeed, one might well consistently think the above, and also think that human proliferation should have prescedence over animal proliferation, and human survival over animal survival. Jan's misinterpretation of Richard's position is hard to explain as anything but an intentional creation of a straw man to refute. (In case you miss this subtle point, I'm not saying anything about Jan in this paragraph. I'm saying that *I* can't think of other more plausible explanations.) Further, all this about animal "rights" is an interesting sideshow, but not relevant to the main point Richard was writing about at all. I interpret Richard's general argument to be from practical grounds, not moral. Richard may well think that it is morally wrong to exterminate species on the scale we currently employ, but he was arguing primarily that it is *dangerous* to do so, not immoral. Richard is saying that the *HUMAN* right to *SURVIVE* is more important than the *HUMAN* right to proliferate. -- The difference between psychonomy and chemistry is that raw chemicals are smart enough not to run experiments on themselves. Remember, today could just as easily be the LAST day of the rest of your life. --- two sayings from Solomon Short {quoted by David Gerrold} -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw