To continue:

Dave wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>You can go with a purely
>>>>utilitarian ethic. That can present problems of its own,
>>>>however. Singer's support for infanticide has been
>>>>criticized on that basis.

>>>To me it is not good enough to say Singer supports infanticide
>>>therefore there must be something wrong with his
>>>utilitarian ethic.

>>I agree. Given his premises, his conclusion is quite reasonable.

> I wouldn't go so far as to say I agree with his premises but I
> certainly
> don't find any of them unreasonable. Do you?

No. I don't agree with him on all his arguments, but none
of them seem unreasonable _per se_.

>>>A better approach would be to consider his
>>>reasoning and either come up with a counter argument or
>>>revise your assumption that infanticide is never justified.

>>I could see situations in which infanticide ( or euthanasia )
>>of severely damaged new-borns might be justified on both a
>>utilitarian and a rights basis, using the same argument Regan
>>uses in _The Case For Animal Rights_ to apply to euthanasia
>>of non-humans on a rights basis.

I probably should note that the major difference between Singer's
utilitarian approach to euthanasia and a rights-based approach
like Regan's is that Singer says the decision should be based
on which choice increases the total sum of happiness in the
whole system. That includes the idea that a new, healthy baby can
"replace" the severely disabled baby and increase the happiness
of the parents, the new baby, and society as a whole. A rights
based approach like Regan's concept of "preference-respecting
euthanasia" says that the only being whose welfare/rights matters
is the individual human or animal to be euthanized. Those who
can make their preference known (as in assisted suicide) should
have their preference respected. Those who can't (as babies and
non-human animals) should have the decision made on the basis of
what is in *their* best interests as far as we can determine their
preference to be -- that is, what their own choice would be if
they could express it. Euthanasia of such beings in acute,
untreatable suffering, which will continue as long as they are
conscious, can be seen as a kind of assisted suicide for them.
To be just and recognize their rights, euthanasia cannot be based
on our own utilitarian considerations ( for example, how difficult
it is for us to care for them, or how expensive the treatment
required, or how much it bothers *us* to watch them suffer, or
how nice it would be for us to have a new, healthy pet) but on
the basis of what value their continued life has *for them*.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>I am in favor of the option of assisted suicide for those who
>>want it also.

> I wholeheartedly agree on both counts.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> How do you feel about conservation charities that sometime use
> mass culls as an attempt to repair ecosystems that have become
> unbalanced somehow, for example as a result of the introduction
> of a non-native species or sudden environmental changes?

Very, very conflicted, I must say. If it is a matter of massive
overpopulation in a devastated area, and the animals cannot be
removed to another habitat, and no appropriate predator or other
factor can be introduced, a cull might be seen as a form of
"preference-respecting euthanasia" as above, considering the
value of his life to each of the animals involved.

The first example I find much more problematical. I see a sound
native ecosystem as very important, and contribute to several
wilderness organizations. I would wish that the original ecological
balance of plants, animals, and other elements like wetlands, rivers,
clean air, and so on, could be restored in as many areas as
possible. I'd like to see species reintroduced in their former
habitats whenever possible. From a rights perspective, however,
it does not matter if an individual animal belongs to a "native"
species or not -- it still has an inherent value as an individual
which must be respected. It's wrong to kill a feral burro because
she isn't a desert bighorn, or a pigeon because he isn't a bluebird,
or even a feral cat because she preys on native birds or animals in
an area. What I'd like is for wilderness supporters to avoid mass
culls and work on methods of decreasing the fertility of non-native
species. Eggs of non-native bird species (e.g. pigeons) can be removed
and destroyed, contraceptives can be introduced in feed or baits,
and so on. Animals can even be trapped, spayed/neutered and released,
as is done with feral cat colonies in many places. Dominant animals
can be nurtured rather than culled, so as to prevent sub-dominant
animals from replacing them and breeding. There are a lot of non-lethal
options to be explored before resorting to culling.

>>>Then the LHP indicates scavenged/gathered products as the first
>>>preference. If it is not practical to meet your nutritional needs that
>>>way
>>>then the next best thing would be local organic plant foods harvested,
>>>packaged processed and stored in an animal friendly manner.
>>>If it is still not practical to meet your nutritional needs then it is
>>>at least plausible that eating the flesh of hunted wild animals or
>>>handlined fish is in accordance with the LHP or the
>>>least violations of animal rights principle.

>>Least harm, I would agree. Animal rights, I would not, for reasons given
>>above.

> I'm still not entirely sure what reasons. You have conceded that
> lethal methods of pest control are in violation of animal rights. Is it
> implausible to you that the number of rodents deliberately posioned per
> calorie of grain is greater than the number of deer deliberately shot
> per calorie of venison?

No, it is entirely plausible and even probable. However, from a rights
perspective, the violation of the deer's rights as an individual cannot
be justified on the basis of the violation of the mice's rights as
individuals. In effect, "two wrongs don't make a right." The only
just course of action would be to respect the rights of *both* by
trying to avoid poisoning the mice in production of vegetables and
using some other method of protecting the crop (for example, better
fences, or more secure storage buildings).

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>Essentially yes, I think a system of ethics that does not attempt
>>>>>to justify itself on utilitarian grounds is arbitrary.

>>>>I think utilitarian results have to be part of the calculation,
>>>>but only part.

>>>Then what is the purpose of ethics in your view?

>>Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
>>a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
>>see as the purpose of ethics?

> How about to balance the conflicting interests of sentient beings
> in such a way as to foster the greatest overall quality (x quantity)
> of life?

I would see that as a good goal, as long as the inherent value of
each individual within the whole is respected first, as in the
example of the mice above, or the euthanized animal above. I would
see considering *only* the overall sum of welfare as a potential
slippery slope which can lead to very bad consequences for the
minority victims.

>>I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
>>and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.

> I see rights as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

I see them as a means of defining how the inherent value of each
individual should justly be respected, independent of utilitarian
benefit to others.

>>The interests of the weaker can only be given consideration by
>>appealing to ethics, I think.

> Yes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>