From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:31:25 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please explain why sentience and sapience would be "arbitrary" 
rl> considerations when we're discussing our treatment of non-human 
rl> entities, but "not-arbitrary" when we're discussing our treatment 
rl> of human entities.  

From article <1992Oct8.224955.11938@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> First, let's clarify a bit: it's non-human SPECIES, not "entities"...we
ry> don't want to re-visit aliens and ball bearings.  Also, they're
ry> arbitrary CRITERIA for CLASSIFICATION or, as we've called it,
ry> "assignment of status." As for treatment, we've already determined
ry> that our INTRA-species ethical considerations differ from our INTER-
ry> species ethical considerations, as exemplified by the question
ry> you never addressed: would you offer dialysis to a kidney-dead cow?
ry> 
ry> This is clearly an attempt to distract from the issue using the
ry> tactic of attribution by assertion: Russell implies that someone
ry> has actually SAID something like this by making it a statement
ry> rather than a question.

You're evading the point, Rich.  Not me.  You've claimed that you've 
established the "arbitrariness" of sentience and sapience in the past, 
yet the only argument that you presented to support your claim fell
apart under scrutiny: namely your appeal to the mental likes and
dislikes of a non-existent authority that you called the "cosmos".

rl> You've suggested in the past that ethical ideas aren't absolute simply
rl> because the "cosmos" hasn't endorsed them.  [...]
rl> 
rl> Rich has claimed over and over again (ad nauseum) that such 
rl> criteria are arbitrary, but the presumably-now-abandoned 
rl> "explanation" that he offered up previously hinged on the 
rl> non-existence of a sentient/sapient "cosmos".  If I may 
rl> paraphrase, he said something to the effect that sentience and 
rl> sapience are arbitrary ideas because the "cosmos" doesn't share 
rl> them.  However, if the "arbitrariness" of any idea is measured by 
rl> the non-existence of a "thinking cosmos", we'd be obliged to 
rl> conclude that every idea is arbitrary... which flies in the
rl> face of empiricism and reason.

ry> Bless you, Russell, my boy...keep trying and one day you'll master
ry> the intricate nuances of your native (I assume) tongue.  From my
ry> last posting:
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ry> From <1992Sep10.004348.10673@pixel.kodak.com>:
ry> 
ry> In an effort to forestall the obvious, let me point out that my use
ry> of terms like "cosmos" and "natural world" has been an attempt to
ry> gather all forms of life under one convenient term....
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, there is a class of objects called the "cosmos".  And yes, 
there is a class of objects called the "natural world".  And yes, 
there is a class of entities called "life".  However, it doesn't 
make much sense for you to pretend to yourself that you can test 
the truth or falsity of an idea by appealing to the non-existent
authority that you've conjured up in these abstract concepts. 

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