From: young@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:43:48 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In <Bu4nr3.B5C@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

>ry>  1. What is this "meaning" that you seem to think conveys some 
>ry>  magical "status" to living creatures and which makes it 
>ry>  acceptable to kill and eat one but not another?

[...]

>From article <1992Sep5.153351.8534@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> The question was not about dictionaries or the words "sapience" and
>ry> "sentience," Russell.  It was about your constant insistence that
>ry> "meaning" is necessary.  I am asking you to define for us exactly
>ry> what you think is "meaning" IN THIS CONTEXT.  And, by association,
>ry> the definition of a "meaningful experience."
>
>If you reread my statement carefully, you'll notice that I used 
>the phrase, "meaningful existence", whereas you've introduced the 
>term "meaningful experience".  There's quite a difference between 
>your phrase and mine.  

	Actually, you've used both phrases at various times during
	this discussion.  What I'm trying to do is get you to explain
	exactly what it is that constitutes "meaningful."  How will I
	(and the rest of the t.p.a. readers) know "meaning" when it happens?

>In the context of the previous conversation, I'd be inclined to 
>argue that all experience is meaningful in some small way,....

	But what CONSTITUTES "meaningful?!?"  Define it for us, as used
	above, and do not simply give us another list of examples which
	use the words "sentience" and "sapience."

[...]

>In deference to your misunderstanding of the word "meaningless", 
>we could alternatively say that existence has zero significance 
>for the ball-bearing since the difference between existence and 
>non-existence is null as far as the ball-bearing is concerned.

	Whether or not _I_ understand the word is not the question; what is
	at issue is your definition of the words.  Let us not concern
	ourselves with inanimate objects; let us concentrate instead on
	precisely what you mean by use of the words "meaning" and "meaningful."

	You continue to assert that these concepts are important, but you
	refuse to define them, preferring to list a few specific examples
	which may or may not apply rather than to provide a general
	definition which could be used to generate many examples that 
	WOULD apply.

[...]

>rl> Let's review the ethical importance of "meaningful" existence...
>
>ry> No, Russell, let's not.  Let's define the term "meaningful" first,
>ry> as you've attempted to use it IN THIS CONTEXT; that was, after all,
>ry> the question that was asked.
>
>Rich, I defined "meaningful" previously, and I elaborated on the 
>definition in the text that you edited out.  I'm going to edit
>my comments back in.  Please re-read them carefully to see if 
>they answer your questions about the difference between 
>meaningless existence and meaningful existence: 
>
>=====================================================================
>rl> Let's review the ethical importance of "meaningful" existence.

[...]
>=====================================================================

	No, Russell, you did NOT define "meaningful," you defined the 
	__ethical_importance__ of "meaningful," which isn't the same thing.

	Please re-read the first sentence of your quote.  __I__DON'T__CARE__
	about "the ethical importance" of "meaningful existence."  I want
	to know how you define "meaningful" so that I can argue a point
	based on an area of mutual understanding.

>ry>  2. By what authority do you presume to assign "status" to non-human
>ry>     species based on sentience/sapience?

[...]

	Please, Russell, stop dithering about and either answer the question
	or tell us why you won't.  Whether or not __I__ "assign status" isn't
	at issue: the question asks by what authority YOU do it...as in
	"insects are not of the same status as...."  And, yes, I know you
	didn't say it, but you ARE defending the statement.

>If you still believe that sentience and sapience are irrelevant
>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.

>ry>  3.Why is your criterion of "sentience" any more valid than a criterion
>ry>    of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or "ability to 
>ry>    synthesize glucose?"

	Please, Russell, without further dithering, either answer the
	question or state that you won't.  And kindly stop these nonsensical
	forays into the inanimate.  I told you in one of my early responses
	that I wouldn't put up with it and I think I've been more than
	magnanimous thus far in allowing it to continue.  We had, I thought,
	agreed that there is a fundamental difference between a paramecium
	and a ball bearing and that we were limiting our discussion to
	that which is alive.

	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, NOT use of the
	inanimate as example, as you are so wont to do.

	Someone wrote me in e-mail that "trying to pin Russell down is like
	trying to nail jello to a tree."  [I hope the sender will forgive
	me for using the quote.]  The waffling evidenced by the refusal, over
	several exchanges, to answer three simple questions is proof of
	the truth of the statement, and is ample evidence that Russell
	finds himself in a corner and is desperate to find a means of
	escape.  At this point, either answers or a clear refusal to
	answer is indicated, but not this interminable intellectual
	floundering.

	The "Three Questions" await your response, Russell.......


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals