h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>To get back to the Darfur/rats example...could one really justify saving human or rat lives on the flip of a coin?<

I don't know. Realistically, probably not.

I'm not really familiar with the Warnock Committee. I was in high school back then, and our current affairs curriculum left something to be desired. I'm going to look it up, though.

Please understand that if I've left any points unaddressed or questions unanswered, it's because I don't know all the answers, I don't pretend to, and all I can go by is what I *feel* is right.

I'd never dig up someone's grave to make my point, though. I've participated in endless letter-writing campaigns, along with boycotts, but deliberately insulting someone isn't going to bring them around to your point of view.

Whoah, PC, that's an answer I was genuinely totally unprepared for. I'm not sure what to say about that. It seems to me that if you have three options: A dies, B dies, A and B both die; then it's axiomatic that you could never choose A and B both die. I guess we don't have enough common ground to continue discussing? Perhaps if you could explain why?

Math,

Sure, I accept that hypothetical unrealistic scenarios don't tell the whole story. But, they can be a useful tool for pointing the way towards part of an answer, especially when answering the question you're really interested in is too difficult without answering easier questions first.

"Why not use a more realistic example. Poor farmer vs. elephant in southern Africa? How do we balance the needs of both in a difficult and unforgiving environment?"

Yes, OK, or alternatively the needs of malaria carrying mosquitoes against the needs of people. One of the techniques used to combat malaria is - I think - the destruction of environments in which mosquitoes can grow. Should we do this? For me - the answer is clear. But now we're going round in circles.

>It seems to me that if you have three options: A dies, B dies, A and B both die; then it's axiomatic that you could never choose A and B both die.<

But Dogster, that's not how I read the question. I read it as "Save A", "Kill B", or "Do Neither". Does that make any difference? I wasn't choosing "both die", I was choosing "In a lose-lose situation, stay out of it".

Sorry if I've offended. I'd hope I had common ground with people I've always respected so.

Hi Eddie ,

"Nah. You're treating it as all-or-nothing. It's part of a trade-off."

But it doesn't have to be. There are compromises we can choose not to make.

"Few people would eat them if they personally had to go steal the cow's foodstuff off a starving African."

But most of them are kept in complete ignorance of these facts. When they do get a factual perspective shown to them, with evidence to back it up you'd be amazed at how many take the rational course of refusing to take part in the industrial farming of animals any more.

"Admittedly, more would tolerate keeping it in uncomfortable conditions and slaughtering it themselves."

Indeed some would. They just do not care as long as they get what they want. What lovely people they are.

"But heroes like Tipu Aziz are willing to say openly that they can compartmentalise normally unpalateable monkey suffering for the benefit to others."

And I have said I am willing to compromise over men such as him and the work he does. He may well pass the suffering vs. benefit test.

"Translation: It's all to complicated to think about clearly."

That is a bit low, and not a little dumb Eddie.

What I am saying is that such simplistic (and deliberately restricted to get a desired response) methodologies are unhelpful.

i.e. You can save the poor starving Africans or the nasty, pestilential, rats, or let both die nasty deaths - oooh! I choose the poor Africans Cilla because I don't want to seem mean in front of all these nice people. Really

In other words they are not complicated enough. Remember I did my degree in social psychology, such methodologies would have had me laughed out of the college.

Next we will have: "there is a puppy and a child in the river, you have time to save only one, which do you choose?" Give me a break, that is tabloid morality questionnaire stuff. "You scored 65-100, you are a god amongst men, atrue compassionate hero of the people"

Nasty, bad animal rights activist, why would choose the puppy? Good grief!

Can we get back to the plot now Eddie?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Dogster

Don't read the above and think that I am getting at you. It's a me and Eddie thing. We know how to push each others buttons is all

"Yes, OK, or alternatively the needs of malaria carrying mosquitoes against the needs of people. One of the techniques used to combat malaria is - I think - the destruction of environments in which mosquitoes can grow. Should we do this? "

Aha, a good one

The technique used to involve spraying all standing water with DDT. Malaria rates plummeted, and birth defects soared - oops! Then we had the let's make all mosquitoes sterile research, I'm not really sure how that has gone.

As far as I am aware there are now projects to actually find a cure or a vaccination for this pernicious disease, at last.

There again in countries where they have made it a priority to proved good sleeping nets for families Malaria rates have once again declined sharply. 'What?' I hear you cry? A simple net? No mass killing (and removing a step in the food chain) or destruction of the environment?

[Cynicism alert]
Not very heroic though is it? You don't get many attention-grabbing headlines about a man on a scooter delivering netting. Much more interesting to have big shiny helicopters spraying lakes or nice white men, in nice white coats innoculating grateful and beautiful African babies.

I love it when there are solutions in which nobody dies.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Busy thread

<>

Seems a bad basis for a moral system to me
We tend to prefer our families to our friends, our friends to our countrymen, our countrymen to foriegners and foriegners to animals
Natural but not a good basis for morality

Re the Darfur scenario it seems to me you're setting up a false choice
Kill the rats, more rats come. Building a better storehouse for the grain would actually solve the problem in the longterm

You keep asking why do we insist on treating animals lives as equal to animals. I can only keep asking why are animals lives less important to you?

>>I was choosing "In a lose-lose situation, stay out of it".

That really doesn't sound like you, PC. I know it's only a hypothetical and neither rats nor people are dying (well - they are - but that's a separate issue) - but I sincerely doubt that you would, for example, refuse to participate in a malaria eradication scheme because it was unfair to mosquitos. I reckon you'd poison the rats and manage to live with it. And, like me, you'd make all sorts of moral trade-offs in all sorts of complex situations. In the real world, we all get our hands dirty.

And that, I feel, is why these thought experiments are useful. The world is a complex, multi-dimensional place. It's only by stripping the problems down to their essentials that we can get any clarity.

Which is why I'm afraid, Math, I don't buy the 'you can't think about the problems that way' angle. It's lazy thinking. It allows the cop-out of coming to an opinion based on impressions, without making the effort to analyse the problem. OK - so even after analysis, it might still be complex and have too many variable stop balance - and we might well get it wrong - but at least we can then have a debate on the topic founded on something better that "I think this" "Well I think that".

And that's also why I don't trust the "It feel's right" test for morality, PC. OK - you're a well-meaning, good person...but how can we be sure? Can you justify your own feelings any better than some fascist bigot could?

>>You keep asking why do we insist on treating animals lives as equal to animals. I can only keep asking why are animals lives less important to you?

That is a good point. Despite what I've just said about not trusting feelings...that's ultimately what it comes down to. What I'm trying to get at with my reductionist approach (we all prefer at least one human to at least one animal) is that this is the Lowest Common Denominator. It may be intellectually unpalateable, but it's how we are.

I'd caution against taking it too far, though. Something like the racist "We like to stick to our own" is not an LCD. To realise this, we need to strip the principles down to the essentials.

So...can anyone think of a suitably stripped-down example where it would be morally acceptable to consciously favour animals at the expense of humans? If so, I'll happily concede that I've got it wrong.

>>Building a better storehouse for the grain would actually solve the problem in the longterm

Ah, but where would the rats find food in the middle of a desert? . I'm happy to support Oxfam, but if anyone's campaigning for RatAid...they can whistle.

I don't agree at all with Peter Singer re. Animal Rights - but here's an excellent article by him that I read a while back. It covers the use of thought experiments to get to the bottom of ethical 'feelings'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2037970,00.html

<>

Why would I want to do that? What you keep asking me to do is agree that consciously favouring humans over animals is right.

>>What you keep asking me to do is agree that consciously favouring humans over animals is right.

I don't want to give the impression that this is what I'm after. What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is the basis for judging that the opposite is right.

It's a matter of how you're defining 'right'.

By my definition, it's (something like) what humans collectively and ultimately regard as being best for humans. I'm trying to work out where animals fit in.

>That really doesn't sound like you, PC. I know it's only a hypothetical and neither rats nor people are dying... but I sincerely doubt that you would, for example, refuse to participate in a malaria eradication scheme because it was unfair to mosquitos. I reckon you'd poison the rats and manage to live with it. And, like me, you'd make all sorts of moral trade-offs in all sorts of complex situations. In the real world, we all get our hands dirty.<

I don't see myself actively participating in any malaria eradication schemes, either, but I suppose I could see my way clear to chipping in toward lots of mosquito repellent. Toxic chemicals? Unlikely, but I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question with an outright "no", either. Should I, hypothetically speaking, feel a need to defend *my* life at some point by using toxins, I probably wouldn't be the first person to feel differently under fire, so to speak.

>OK - you're a well-meaning, good person...but how can we be sure? Can you justify your own feelings any better than some fascist bigot could?<

Perhaps not to your satisfaction. But I can live with that.

Oxfam's not that prolific over here, so I can't determine (without more research) whether or not I could contribute to their causes. But I don't contribute to causes that support or contribute to animal research or which "donate" animals (if you treat people like commodities, it's immoral slavery, but do it to animals, and it's a tax-deducitble donation? Go figure). I was asked recently by a coworker to sponsor her in the Chicago Marathon, as she'll be running for the American Cancer Society. I politely advised her that I cannot in good conscience contribute toward the activities of the American Cancer Society as long as they continue with unnecessary animal research, but that I'd be happy to make an equal contribution, in her name, to PeTA. She refused. Am I to believe that I'm the one who's "wrong" in this situation?

>By my definition, it's (something like) what humans collectively and ultimately regard as being best for humans. I'm trying to work out where animals fit in.<

By my definition, it's (something like) what humans collectively and ultimately regard as being best for *all living things*. Animals fit in quite nicely there.

Of course, we live in an imperfect world, so this means that it's impossible to avoid *all* suffering. Sometimes, animals will suffer. Sometimes, people will suffer. But I don't feel that just because humans are overpopulating the planet necessarily justifies the exploitation and destruction of other living things. The onus is on us.

What I'm trying to work my mind around here is the "everyone has at least one human they value more highly than at least one animal" idea. I'm not entirely sure why this kind of personal preference is OK, but otherwise, doing what doesn't feel wrong (or what feels less wrong) isn't justifiable otherwise.

>>Am I to believe that I'm the one who's "wrong" in this situation?

By my standards - yes. Very much so.

A colleague of mine was recently asked by his sister and new husband to give a donation in lieu of gift to the Baptist World Mission. He proposed Medecins Sans Frontiere as an alternative. I see this as a perfectly reasonable choice not to support the aims and objectives of missionaries. Handing out Bibles along with whatever practical aid the Baptists give is morally unimportant.

Saving human life *is* morally important. I can appreciate you have different views to others on whether the use of animals is an appropriate way to do this. But you were being asked to contribute to the human good, not the animal good. The onus was on you to find some way that you could live with to help people - prefarably the people with cancer your friend was trying to support. I don't believe you gain any moral brownie points for saying "I prefer to spend my money on a meal, a new pair of shoes or my own particular hobby of looking after animals."

Now, I'm not pretending that I'm morally perfect: I'm shafting the third world as effectively as anyone here. But I am an Oxfam supporter, obviously. Yes, they do provide farm animals which allow communities to become self sufficient. So my question is - if you're uncomfortable with sending goats, chickens or guinea pigs (they don't advertise the last one) - what do you propose should be done in the immediate term to alleviate human suffering without the involvement of animals? Have a good long think about whether you'd rather the fertiliser for any crops you might want to provide for them should come from foreign petrochemicals or locally-produced manure. Have a think if it's OK that people suffer, just so long as you personally haven't hurt any animals?

We have friends who send us cat Protection League cards every Christmas in exchange for our Oxfam ones. As it happens - I have as specific policy of refusing to donate to animal charities (I think it's shameful that in the UK the RSPCA receives vastly more money than the NSPCC), and I can live with it if anyone is aggrieved when I turn down their sponsorship requests. But I am making a point here: our domestic concerns about cuddly kittens are relatively trivial when you've little to eat, no healthcare, education, access to clean water...

'Scuse the rant - one last thought experiment:

You meet a person from Darfur. Are you comfortable saying "No - I didn't send you a goat. But look on the bright side! You hardly ever see models wearing fur nowadays."

>The onus was on you to find some way that you could live with to help people - prefarably the people with cancer your friend was trying to support.<

I don't think the onus was on me. She approached *me* asking me to make a contribution- my money, not hers- in her name. I can't, in good conscience, contribute to that kind of charity. I'm not obligated to chip in for her little hobby, either.

>So my question is - if you're uncomfortable with sending goats, chickens or guinea pigs (they don't advertise the last one) - what do you propose should be done in the immediate term to alleviate human suffering without the involvement of animals? Have a good long think about whether you'd rather the fertiliser for any crops you might want to provide for them should come from foreign petrochemicals or locally-produced manure<

Locally-produced manure, of course. But can you gurantee me that if I contribute to Heifer, Intl. and they send a cow someplace, those people won't eat the cow? If not, I'm afraid I can't in good conscience contribute.

I fail to see why animals need to be tortured, killed, and exploited because of human overpopulation.

>I see this as a perfectly reasonable choice not to support the aims and objectives of missionaries. Handing out Bibles along with whatever practical aid the Baptists give is morally unimportant.<

To the Baptists it is morally important. So we're back to "well, I think this is perfectly reasonable, by my standards" and "well, I don't".

Would you find it equally moral to save human lives at the expense of other human lives? If so, why not? (It's not really a yes or no question, but another with hypothetical situations involved. There are circumstances where I think it's moral to sacrifice some lives to save others- I'd save my own ass every time. I just don't place a higher value on human animals than on other animals, from a starting point.

Hi Eddie ,

"Saving human life *is* morally important. "

In the spirit of the devils' advocate that you so like to play - Why? And before you answer step away from your species for a minute - be a Meerkat and I'll be the Warthog.

Right Timon what actually makes humans more important than any other species on the planet? As a species they have done more the damage the long term viability of this world than any other. They are greedy to the point of self-extinction, always taking more than they need. They even slaughter each other. Not a pretty species.

It's not like we'd miss few, say 75% of them.

Perhaps if they could find a way to get along with all the other species, live and let live, they might be worth saving. Not very likely though is it Timon, they can't even stop killing each other for five minutes.

"Now, I'm not pretending that I'm morally perfect: I'm shafting the third world as effectively as anyone here. "

No you are not morally perfect. Banging a few pounds off to Oxfam is like sticking a plaster on a Volcano. Some day, and probably sooner rather than later, it is going to blow.

To survive into the middle to long term humanity will need the ecological diversity it is so steadily destroying. Diversity protection is not about funding a few national parks and zoos, it requires mankind to step back and consider if it wants a future or not. The whole species needs to make a moral choice about how it treats its fellow travellers.

I am called a misanthropist because I see few redeemable features in my own species. There are far too many of us, and we are a squalid bunch of self-interested sods with no moral scruples whatsoever.

You whine on about the RSPCA getting more money than the NSPCC well I say good! Animals are treated far worse than people in this country and cannot protect themselves. It is a measure of our species that we even need to form societies to protect our own young.

I meet a person from Darfur and I am comfortable saying "No - I didn't send you a goat. Overgrazing is adding to the desertification of your land. Instead I invested the money in a system that will allow you to irrigate your land all year round and grow ten times the amount of food in the form of maize and vegetables than you could have got with a goat. Oh yes, and with the change I provided you with good quality mosquito nets."

Blessings,
Matholwch .

PC,

Don't worry - not offended, just very surprised is all. It's an action vs. inaction thing (like in the article Ed linked to). By doing nothing (in my scenario) the outcome is both the rats and the people die. To me, 'staying out of it' is as much a choice as getting involved if you're fully aware of the consequences of staying out of it.

Math, re mozzies:

I agree that if there is a way to solve the problem without harming either the people or the mozzies, then that's the best solution of all. One of the good things about Bill G. is that I think the foundation he set up is prioritising things like nets to combat malaria. I read about something recently where they have bred (or maybe genetically engineered) a form of mosquito that is resistant to malaria. The plan is to introduce this new form into malarial areas. Because the new mosquito is resistant, it will be able to out-compete the non-resistant mosquitos. Needs lot of testing and development before it can be tried of course (and many mosquitos will be experimented on in the process). Now that I think of that - it raises other moral questions. Is introducing a new form of malaria resistant mosquito to outbreed the old form morally acceptable? It's a bit like genocide from one point of view.

In the meantime though, until solutions which are mutually beneficial are found, don't we need to take action to stop the mozzies?

>In the meantime though, until solutions which are mutually beneficial are found, don't we need to take action to stop the mozzies?<

Yep, I think so. My argument all along, though, is that we can't let inertia be our guide, and continue to do things that aren't mutually beneficial just because it's the path of least resistance.

Mosquitoes that have the potential to spread West Nile Virus are a big problem in my neighborhood during rainy summers. I'm not in favor of letting West Nile kill off all the Chicagoans. I'm just saying we need to, or should, find ways of eradicating the mosquitoes without killing them all.

Regarding genetic modification... I'm not entirely sure I'm against the idea of bredding malaria resistant mosquitoes (or cancer resistant people ). Though I'm leery of, and avoid, eating gentically modified foods simply because I don't want to turn into a C.H.U.D. or anything like that.

>To me, 'staying out of it' is as much a choice as getting involved if you're fully aware of the consequences of staying out of it.<

In a way, I agree. But I'd be lying if I said I've never stayed out of something, with an awareness of at least potential consequences. Maybe I'm not the most honorable person in the world, but I'm not heartless. (And sometimes, not getting involved is the better way to go. I won't get into the hell I went through for a couple of years after calling the cops on neighbors involved in a domestic squabble- I'll never do that again!)