Man, you are a funny guy... or at least I hope so!!
By the way, Doug, to call you a "Chomsky type" is high compliment in my book.
Miles:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, ravi wrote:
>
>> So let me ask you a question that may help
>> us get a grip on this: I assume you feel less queasy about kicking a
>> leaf (or even better: a rock) rather than a dog. Do you think that is
>> just a programmed response or aesthetic issue? Or do you think you are
>> acting based on some considered position (apart from pragmatism/logistics)?
>
> The assumption of the question is that we can just intuitively "know"
> whether or not something suffers.
>
No, you are reading me wrong, that is not the assumption at all. In fact my idea behind starting with the simplest questions is to avoid making higher-order assumptions.
> My "queasiness" about doing something
> is determined by a complex array of sociohistorical, psychological, and
> biological processes (did I leave anything out?). For instance, I'm
> grossed out by the idea of french kissing my first cousin who's about
> my age. That's not because there is some natural or intuitive
> aversion to kissing first cousins (indeed, in some cultures, you're
> expected to marry a first cousin!); rather, incest is defined in my
> culture as including first cousins, so that makes me queasy.
A question to discuss in a separate thread: where does the incest taboo come from? In some cultures marrying a sibling is fine too! But the discussion of the evolutionary roots of the incest taboo is, however interesting, a different matter.
So, it seems to me from what you write above that your answer is that it is a sort of programmed response? There are things that we (you too I assume) have dropped that used to make you queasy, because at some point you discovered that it is just some sort of received prejudice or programmed behaviour. For example, for some people it is their attitude towards homosexuality. There is a need to not discriminate against homosexuality, but realising that aversion to kissing one's cousin is a cultural practice, does not compel one to start kissing them ;-). By which I mean I am not suggesting that should you realise that your differential attitude towards animals and rocks is programmed, unexamined, arbitrary (pick one or more or use less loaded terms if you find them loaded) you can or should start treating animals as you do rocks. You may choose to retain your attitude for some reason or other. I am curious about that reason if any.
The other option (mentioned in the question) is that you have arrived at your attitude through some thought process, in which case I am curious once again as to what that process is.
The trouble with these discussions is that there is a 'righteousness' assumption. You are looking for my assumptions perhaps because you think that I have absolute faith in my position and am trying to trick you in some Socratic fashion ;-). The perhaps not apparent difference is the difference between a question and an interrogation. I say this because I am going to rephrase my question and I want you to understand that I am willing to be educated (even sneered at if that will get you through the night!):
If I gave you $50 to throw a rabbit across the room and $30 to throw a rock, you may choose to do neither, or I am guessing you will throw the rock. If so, why?
If this is a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type question (i.e., hidden assumptions once again!) then tell me where I am making that mistake. It's possible...
> --And just so with kicking a living thing: if I experience more
> queasiness kicking a dog than a plant, it's not necessarily because
> I have some a priori knowledge that the dog suffers; it could just be
> that I have learned that kicking dogs is icky.
I think you are underselling yourself, here... forget about the "it could be". You are Miles. You have access to his thoughts and emotions. Tell us what is really going on (or would go on) in such a situation.
> I guess your implied argument is that all people just "know" what
> suffers at what does not, so the line between what to eat and what
> not to eat is self-evident.
No, no... I am saying that (a) either you used some reasoning to arrive at your attitude towards animals, or (b) you are using a programmed response. If it is the former, then it is possible that my work is done for me and this discussion could be settled quickly. If it is the latter, then the burden is on me to demonstrate that (b) is not wrong simply because it is programmed, and could well be based on some reasoning.
> In contrast, I treat these as interesting
> questions: does a cabbage suffer when you cut off its head? Does
> a shrimp suffer when it suffocates in a net? --And most important:
> how can we verify our claims about what suffers and what does not?
Ok, what are the measurements you use to figure out if someone (whom you cannot directly communicate with) is suffering? As I mentioned in my response to someone else (Bill?) we share our biological systems to a large extent with many creatures, so there may be clues there.
Bill:
Answer to your response tomorrow.
Damn, I still owe Angelus a couple of responses. We need a lbo-no-quota overflow list...
--ravi