From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:25:25 GMT

In <Bvpws9.4py@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>Please explain why you think sapience and sentience are irrelevant
>to a discussion dealing with ethical decisions involving animals
>that are not exactly like you.

	Oh, please!  Not AGAIN, Russell.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Sep10.004348.10673@pixel.kodak.com>:

rl>If you still believe that sentience and sapience are irrelevant
rl>concepts, [...]

	As you've been told before, this is NOT my argument.  My argument
	is that sentience/sapience are ARBITRARY CRITERIA for assigning
	"status" to non-human species.

	If you're going to re-state my arguments, please make some attempt
	to do so accurately.  This is at least the third time you've been
	corrected on this very point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	See also: <1992Aug24.231123.4519@pixel.kodak.com>.

[...]

>Without pointing to the "cosmos" or the "Great Oz" or some other
>entity, ...

	Whoever said, "This, too, shall pass," obviously didn't know
	Russell:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Sep10.004348.10673@pixel.kodak.com>:

	In an effort to forestall the obvious, let me point out that my use
	of terms like "cosmos" and "natural world" has been an attempt to
	gather all forms of life under one convenient term....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	You must be desperate to drag THIS old chestnut out once again,
	Russell.

>...please explain why sapience and sentience are arbitrary concerns.

	Arbitrary with regard to WHAT, Russell?  I could make an assumption
	here, but you'd probably claim it was wrong and harangue us for days
	about it, so please clarify.  You might also consider reviewing past
	postings in this thread.

	I re-post my earlier suggestions under the assumption that you were
	distracted when you got to this portion of my previous posting
	and missed them:

	   o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
		that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
		concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
		standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
		your values.

		So far, your arguments are rather like those against
		pornography: "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I
		know it when I see it."

	   o  Second, you need to tell us which external entity gave you
		the right to make life and death judgements of other species
		based on your ill-defined "meaning" test.

	   o  Third, you need to tell us the source of your absolute deter-
		mination that it is "wrong" to kill sentient/sapient animals
		for food.

	   o  Fourth, if the determination of "right" versus "wrong" in this
		area of discussion originates from within the confines of
		your own mind, you need to explain to us why we should
		blindly accept your judgement as absolute, or be relegated
		to that slag heap of humanity you use for those who do not
		agree with you.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)