From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:26:39 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> Now, this is the third time that I've re-posted this.  One would 
ry> normally assume that three repetitions would be sufficient to make 
ry> it crystal clear that nothing has been "abandoned" here and that
ry> there is no "appeal to non-existent authority."  If we say that the 
ry> sapience and sentience you use as criteria to assign moral and ethical 
ry> relevance, or "status", to non-human species is utterly without 
ry> significance to those non-human species, we have said precisely the 
ry> same thing without using the term upon which you've hung this 
ry> desperate excursion into semantics rather than substance... 

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> What makes you think that sentience has no significance to non-human
rl> species?   [mind-reading perhaps]

From article <1992Oct9.233940.1808@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Oh well, to the question: human use of sentience and sapience as
ry> criteria for assigning moral and ethical worth, or "status" to
ry> non-human species is a process which adds nothing to the collective
ry> lives of those non-human species.  If you disagree, what makes you 
ry> think otherwise?

Again, it's you who are "assigning status".  Not me.

Be that as it may, I don't understand why you think that the 
importance of sentience and sapience in our ethical decision- 
making ought to be measured with reference to "collective lives".  
If my vet were to operate on one of the dogs that lives with me, 
without using anesthesia, the dog would most assuredly consider 
the experience to be unpleasant...  regardless of the impact or
non-impact that such an incident might have on the "collection" 
of all dogs.  

rl> Anesthesia is a tool whose major purpose is to diminish sentience 
rl> so that painful and/or emotionally disturbing medical procedures 
rl> can be implemented without causing unnecessary suffering for the 
rl> recipient.  Do you believe that animals should receive anesthesia
rl> prior to surgery?  

ry> Generally, yes.  I've never claimed that sentience and sapience
ry> weren't real, or that reptiles, birds, and mammals don't feel pain.
ry> [We've been over this very point before, please open your files and
ry> refer to <1992Sep18.220038.12945@pixel.kodak.com>.]  The anesthesia
ry> twist is new, but the basic thought is yet another repetition of
ry> a question already asked and answered.
ry> 
ry> I have claimed that sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria 
ry> for assigning "status" to non-human species, a position thus far
ry> not refuted by the constant repetition of your first few arguments.

1) I've pointed out repeatedly that you're the one who's "assigning
   status", not me.   
2) So far, you presented definitions, not arguments, to support your
   position.  It's kinda tough to "refute" definitions.  
3) Thanks for admitting that you approve of anesthesia for animals.  
   Do you recommend anesthesia for plants as well?

ry> Remember these, Russell?  Good.  Now, how about addressing them?
ry> 
ry> o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
ry> that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
ry> concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
ry> standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
ry> your values.

I'll respond to your (redundant) questions when you respond to 
the answers that I supplied previously.  For starters:

From Message-ID: <Bu2Jno.7Bx@wpg.com>
=====================================================================
These terms are defined in the dictionary, Rich.  "Sentience" 
designates sensory abilities, namely the ability of an entity to 
gather information about its own being as well as its 
environment.  "Sapience" designates the cognitive abilities that 
permit an entity to process and analyze information.  The word,
"meaningful", is a catch-all term that designates significance 
or purpose.

Let's review the ethical importance of "meaningful" existence. 
Without the qualities of sentience and sapience, existence would 
be perceptually and cognitively meaningless to a ball-bearing, 
and hence it would be impossible to deprive it in any way.  We 
could do it no harm if we whack it with hammers, or melt it down, 
or deal with it as we choose.  On the otherhand, existence is 
meaningful to a healthy chimpanzee, who possesses the ability to 
perceive his own being as well as the world around him.  Hence, 
we ought to think about the impact that our actions may have on 
him or her.  
=====================================================================

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ