Ethics (was: Who's "Him"?)

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
> pearl wrote:
...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have to to survive. To suggest that is ludicrous.
<..>
> >> Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human
> >> against another.
> >
> > To survive an attack by another human being..
>
> You may not *initiate* an attack on another human being to "survive".
> If you're hungry and have no money, you may not attack another human
> being to take his money for food, or to kill and eat him.
>
> *ONLY* defensive violence may be legally justified against another human.

'There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a
situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate
response to that threat is to break the law. [..] the fact that hunger does
not arise spontaneously, and there are other ways in which to seek relief
from poverty [..]
...
"If the defence of necessity is to form a valid and consistent part of
our criminal law it must, as has been universally recognised, be strictly
controlled and scrupulously limited to situations that correspond to its
underlying rationale."
...'
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Necessity-in-English-law

The lion has no other way to preserve her life except by predation.

> >>>> But the lion needs no justification.
> >>> The lion, no. However humans view the lion's actions as justified.
> >> Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other
> >> animals, either.
> >
> > After all your assertion that "rights" apply only to humans?
>
> Yes, even after that. Humans do not need any "justification" - need not
> appeal to some "right" - to be able to prey ethically on other animals.
> It is presumed ethical.

'In his article, "Bambi Lovers vs. Tree Huggers," Ned Hettinger joins
Holmes Rolston in arguing that, since predation plays such a critical role
in evolution, anything less than a thoroughgoing affirmation of it (either
by humans or by animals) constitutes a failure to take the appropriate
attitude toward the natural world.
...
On Hettinger's view, human hunting and meat-eating are justified if and
only if "some legitimate goal of meat eaters is not attainable by eating a
vegetarian diet and . . . hunters have some legitimate goals that are not
achievable through wildlife photography" or other less harmful means
(Hettinger 1994, 11). He claims that there is such a goal, namely,
"participating in the logic and biology of one's ecosystem" (Rolston
1988, cited in Hettinger 1994, 13). Hunters and meat eaters, unlike
vegetarian wildlife photographers "[affirm] human nature by participating
in a process that made us what we are."
...'
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/ethics_and_the_environment/v006/6.1everett.html

Not natural predators. "Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today" ....

'The Case Against Sport Hunting
Published 06/15/02

API Wildlife Campaign Director, Camilla Fox, was invited by North
American Hunter magazine to submit a piece on the animal rights
perspective of sport hunting. This is what the editors received.

The Animal Protection Institute (API), a national nonprofit organization
with 85,000 members and supporters, is dedicated to protecting animals
from cruelty and exploitation. API opposes the killing of animals for
"sport" on the grounds that it is contrary to public sentiment,
ecologically destructive, unnecessary, and unethical.

Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans
oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation." Fewer than
6% of Americans hunt today - roughly half as many as in the early
1970s. On the other hand, participation in non-consumptive wildlife
activities has increased dramatically over the last decade. Today, more
than 31% of Americans enjoy some form of wildlife-watching recreation.
Still, wildlife agencies continue to "manage" wildlife and habitat to ensure
a healthy supply of "game" animals for hunters and a constant source
of revenue from license sales. Non-game and endangered species and
habitat protection programs, however, remain chronically underfunded.

Sport hunters argue, often vehemently, that they are true conservationists.
However, conservation in the hunter's mind seems to mean ensuring an
adequate supply of targets, often at the peril of non-hunted native species.
A recent study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin cites numerous examples
of hunter groups resisting and even impeding efforts to restore native
wildlife or to protect biodiversity. According to the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, 29% of avian species and 54% of mammalian species
currently threatened or endangered are still jeopardized by hunting. The
U.S. Sportsman's Alliance - the largest sport hunting lobbying group
in America, representing more than 1,000 sportsmen organizations -
has attempted to dismantle the Endangered Species Act and actively
promotes polices that destroy wildlife habitat. How is this consistent
with conservation?

Perhaps most disturbing to Americans is the idea of killing for "sport."
Sport implies two players on an equal playing field. Where is the sport
in shooting captive-raised elk on game farms? Or in chasing down
coyotes and wolves with aircraft and snowmobiles? Or in baiting black
bears with jelly donuts to shoot them from the safety of a nearby tree?
Some hunters argue that bowhunting has brought back the fair chase
in hunting. But where is the fair play when one animal escapes wounded
for every animal killed? If sport hunters are truly interested in good
sportsmanship then why haven't more hunters challenged these practices?

Fortunately, sport hunting is declining as fewer and fewer Americans
find pleasure in killing animals for recreation. Many former hunters find
the spiritual connection with nature and thrill of stalking and shooting
an animal with a camera or binoculars. Indeed, the three fastest-growing
outdoor activities among persons 16 years or older in the United States
are birdwatching, hiking, and backpacking.

It is our hope that when hunters come to truly empathize with the animals
they wound or kill and see them as sentient beings - as many hunters
eventually do - they will stop hunting. The evolution toward a more
compassionate relationship with animals is evident and should be
commended. Hunters would do well for themselves - and the animals
they purport to conserve and revere - by also making this great leap
forward and calling off the hunt.

http://www.bancrueltraps.com/articles.php?p=395&more=1

> >>>> You up. You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans
> >>>> to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification. It
> >>>> doesn't work.
> >>> I wrote that the lion is justified, since to survive she has no other
> > options. You said that need can't justify anything, so I showed
> > you an example from human law saying that self-defense/survival
> > justifies (right to) lethal force against (even) another human being.
> >> The lion requires no justification for his predation on other animals,
> >> and neither do we, as long as the prey isn't human.
> >
> > Why don't you need justification as a proclaimed moral agent?
>
> Why would I? The prey do not have rights.

They have interests which merit moral consideration and protection
from moral agents. How can you disregard non-humans interests?

> >>>>>> You don't know what you're doing.
> >>>>> You can't justify what you're doing.
> >>>> I need no justification. Animals have no rights. I may ethically prey
> >>>> on them as freely as does the lion.
> >>> Why do you think you have the right to take life since - unlike
> > in the lion's case - it has nothing to do with your survival, but
> > merely your wish to eat 'meat'? How does your interest weigh
> > against your victim's interests, or are you going to simply deny
> > they have interests of their own, like living, liberty, contentment..
> >
> >> It isn't a question of ethical or legal "right". I just do it. It's
> >> presumed to be ethically permitted. That's the default.
> >
> > Presume shresume. You need to answer my questions.
>
> I have done.

You haven't. All you've done is to state "it's presumed..".

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. Rights do not enter into it in any way.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They do it respective of how *they* feel about it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
> >>>>>>>>>>> animals are unfeeling
> >>>>>>>>>> Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.
> >>>>>>>>> And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?
> >>>>>>>> We all know it.
> >>>>>>> Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me?
> >>>>>> Really.
> >>>>> Waiting....
> >>>> Really.
> >>> Can't, can you.
> >> Have.
> >
> > Not even an attempt. As per usual.
>
> Have done much more than an attempt.

Where, ball?

"Hoots" wrote in message
...

> Do the Hustle!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT6LRADexhw