Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!usl!jla
From: jla@usl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Another small question
Message-ID: <397@usl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 01:52:51 EST
Article-I.D.: usl.397
Posted: Mon Apr  8 01:52:51 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 04:59:27 EST
Organization: The Center for Intense Gonzo Research
Lines: 25


>  My question this time is . . . "Why should it not be a CHILD instead of a
>  monkey???  (of course an unwanted child with birth defects who can't speak
>  and whom we don't recognize as 'human' therefore)
>  
>  Ken Arndt

Not  being an appropriate gourmet, I can only suppose that it should not
be a child because children are less tasty.

But let me elaborate on the initial scenario.  Suppose that the chef has
in  the  back  of  his  kitchen  a supply of monkeys for such meals, and
further suppose that the chef discovers one afternoon that one of  these
monkeys  is  capable  of  sustaining  interesting  conversations in sign
language.  Now, is it more "moral" to exclude the conversing monkey from
the next feast?  Why?

 
				    Joseph Arceneaux

                                    USL Computer Science Department
				    {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla

     "I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine."