Subject:
|
Re: Frog
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:35:53 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@iwantnospam.ctp&SayNoToSpam&.com
|
Viewed:
|
655 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
< a hard question, the original one of this thread >
I think this was addressed to me. I've been fascinated by the thread but
don't have time to plunge in. I did want to answer the question.
AFAI am concerned, and I do try to err on the side of safety, it is OK
to use non sentient creatures, but not OK to use sentient or potentially
sentient ones. In some cases I acknowledge that there are large gray
areas.
What sentient to me means is self awareness in a meaningful way. I don't
feel a mouse is sentient even though it may have some limited problem
solving ability or situational awareness. I'd put most ruminants in the
non sentient category. Dogs, cats, dolphins, monkeys.. in fact many
large carnivores, are all potentially sentient or actually sentient.
So the following things are OK in my moral system:
Eating domestic chicken, turkey, cow, sheep, pork, most of which have
had all the sense bred out of them, as well as invertebrates and most
fish.
Using the above in medical research where tissue cultures won't do, if
done humanely.
Contraception and abortion before about 4-5 months
and the following are NOT OK:
Eating dolphin, monkey, dog, cat.
Using the above in medical research unless it is not permanently harmful
and does not cause any pain whatsoever to the animal and there is NO
other workaround.
Late term abortion where the fetus is an actual human instead of a
potential one...
Wanton destruction of wild habitat or using unsafe nets for tuna and the
like.
As far as I am concerned the other species on this planet most likely to
be or become sentient is the dolphin.
I probably will try not to respond to any responses to this, but I did
feel that by listing some of my "rules" that I use, it might shed some
light. I won't claim perfection here but do think I've got it mostly
right.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) Pigs are actually pretty smart, if I'm remembering correctly. (...) I think all the nets are pretty unsafe, for the tuna. Steve (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Frog
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote: [It's OK to use critter who aren't aware in a meaningful way] (...) I wonder what potentially sentient means. Capable of being 'uplifted?' As steve bliss points out, it is commonly accepted that even domesticated porcine are (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) So long, and thanks for all the fish. Jasper "Always insert a few random HHGttG references everywhere" Janssen (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) See? I'm slowly influencing you. You're ranking cats right up there with dolphins and monkeys. :) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Frog
|
| (...) I've always wondered about this. I have some questions WRT this stance. What does superior mean? Is it based on cognitive-emotional capacity? Frankly, using what I guess to be the answer, I consider myself superior to most of humanity, but I (...) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
