From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:02:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.185729.23128@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
> In <1992Dec9.220823.24782@clpd.kodak.com>, Robert Black writes:
> >
> >In article <1992Dec2.174539.28379@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
> >>
> >>In <1992Nov25.215631.20430@clpd.kodak.com>, Bob Black writes:
> >> 
> >>>re: speciesism
> >>>
> >>>Martin posted this:
> >>>
> >>>mh>  Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
> >>>mh>  is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save 
> >>>mh>  members of another species.
> 
> [...examples deleted...]
> 
> >>>Rich concluded:
> >>>
> >>>>    Martin's challenge remains unrefuted by these examples.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Mr. Black responds:
> >
> >But these examples fail due to our lack of sufficient information and
> >based on assumptions about foreknowledge (that is, we're assuming that
> >the deaths were not anticipated or expected by those who died).  
> 
> 	And that's the whole point: the two examples offered do not refute
> 	Martin's challenge.  The reasons for this failure are irrelevant to
> 	the point.

Actually the reasons do seem relevant.  If the examples have been
disproved, then further inquiry would be discouraged.  If the examples
have been dismissed due to insufficient information, then further
exploration may be merited.  However with the clarifications at the
bottom ("SUM of the actions of ALL members..."), Martin's challenge is
increasingly starting to look tautologically useless.  His claim now
appears to take a form like: If John Doe sacrifices himself, then he
won't survive. 

[...]

> >>>ry>  ... As _I_ understand it, speciesism 
> >>>ry>  refers to the idea that members of a given species treat other members
> >>>ry>  of the same species preferentially. 
> >>>
> >>>This definition seems essentially equivalent to that of Singer who
> >>>defined it as prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of one's own
> >>>species and against those of members of other species. 
> >> 
> >> 	Not quite.  There is nothing in MY definition which says anything
> >> 	about a prejudice AGAINST other species.  It is one thing to treat
> >> 	members of one's own species preferentially; it is quite another to
> >> 	engage in active sabotage of another species.  "I want my species to
> >> 	continue," is hardly equivalent to, "I want that other species to
> >> 	disappear," although in practice, the difference may be limited to
> >> 	motivation alone, with the end result the same in either case.
> >
> >The purpose of introducing a notion like speciesism is to denote
> >prejudicial behavior that is governed strictly by species membership. 
> >Whether the prejudice is FOR or AGAINST isn't important.  [...]
> 
> 	Then why is it mentioned in your paraphrasing of Singer's definition?
> 	Clearly, the prejudice DOES make a difference: as I've already said,
> 	the drive to have one's own species continue is hardly equivalent to
> 	a drive to eliminate other specific species.

A clarification: Whether the prejudice is FOR or AGAINST another species
isn't important for determining the presence or absence of speciesism. 
That is, speciesism can take either or both forms.  Obviously such a
prejudice is important in other ways.  My statement was presented in the
context of a discussion about speciesism. 

> 
> [...dictionary definitions of "species" and "distinguish" deleted...]
> 
> >If dogs can not "distinguish between species" in accordance with these
> >(standard) definitions, then how could it make sense to say that they
> >can act in a speciesist manner?
> 
> 	It begins to sound like you are entertaining the Lawrencian tactic
> 	of retreat to semantics. ...

Actually it's a return to semantic precision.

>	...  In the sense that dogs "know" that this
> 	is a "cat" or that is a "bird", dogs cannot "distinguish between
> 	species."  On the other hand, I'm sure that dogs can sense that
> 	there is a difference between this animal and that one.  They may
> 	even note that groups of creatures have similar characteristics.
> 	However, the differences which are important to a dog are surely
> 	not always those which are important to humans.

Irrelevant.  What's relevant is that there are many examples of dogs
appearing to show favoritism toward other taxonomic classes at the
expense of their own.  How many such examples are needed to cast doubt
on the allegation that dogs are speciesist? Or is it the claim that we
can never draw a conclusion in this matter by reviewing the actions of
individuals?

> 
> [...]
> 
> >Given the definition of species and the fact that it has a very specific
> >meaning, how can a dog, who is confused about how to identify another
> >member of his own species, be judged to be speciesist?
> 
> [...]
> 
> 	Another semantic retreat?  We've been over this before: if the dog
> 	THINKS that another creature is a dog, then any actions taken fit
> 	the definition of "speciesist" from the dog's point of view.

You're still overlooking the significance of the meaning of the term
"species." If a dog thinks a non-dog is actually a dog, that doesn't
magically shift the non-dog into a different taxonomic class.  The dog's
"point of view" is irrelevant. 

When dogs use criteria other than the specific taxonomic classification
of species, then they're not acting as speciesists.

[...]

> >> 	There are two things which must be kept in mind here:
> >> 
> >> 	   1. Countless generations of dogs have been selectively bred to
> >> 		follow the bidding of humans; we are not talking about the
> >> 		product of natural selection.
> >
> >Yes, you're absolutely correct.  Are you suggesting that Martin should
> >re-word his hypothesis to exclude species whose breeding habits have 
> >been heavily influenced by humans?
> 
> 	No, only that individual examples of apparently contradictory
> 	behavior may be more prevalent in a "Man-made" animal. ...

How prevalent do these apparently contradictory individual examples have
to be in order cast reasonable doubt on the speciesist hypothesis?

>	... Man has
> 	bred countless generations of dogs to "believe" that humans are
> 	dogs.  As mentioned above, the behavior is only contradictory from
> 	the human point of view...the dog isn't confused at all.

Whether the dog is confused or not doesn't matter.  The speciesist claim
rises or falls on the question of whether the dog is prejudicing his
behavior on the basis of species membership.  The dog may "think" he's
acting in a speciesist way by favoring humans, but this is a wrong
conclusion.  In actual fact, he is not acting in a speciesist way.

> 
> >> 	   2. In the dog's instinct and background the ONLY creature it
> >> 		associates with the presentation and regulation of food
> >> 		is "Mom."  Countless generations of dogs have been selectively
> >> 		bred to retain this view into adulthood.
> >> 
> >> 	To the domestic dog, then, the human is a combination of mother and
> >> 	pack leader, and the dog performs whatever actions it must to retain
> >> 	the good will of the leader/mother and remain in good standing with
> >> 	the "pack" into which it perceives itself to have been born.  Dogs
> >> 	have been selectively bred for neoteny and submission to human
> >> 	authority for millenia.
> >> 
> >> 	In this light, it is not unusual that a dog might come to the aid
> >> 	of a human.  I suggest that it is stretching the point to assume
> >> 	that the dog understands the difference between an adult human and
> >> 	a child.  Even if we allow this fantasy, the drive to protect one's
> >> 	genetic heritage would provide sufficient impetus for the dog to
> >> 	come to the aid of another pack member: the child may, after all,
> >> 	carry SOME of the genes as a relative...the dog doesn't know any
> >> 	better, and that's the way it works in a pack of true dogs: the pups
> >> 	might be cousins.
> >
> >Then I would have to conclude that the dog is incapable of being a
> >speciesist.
> 
> 	From what point of view?  ...

Huh? From the point of view that accepts the standard definition of
species, of course.  The term "species" does not have arbitrary meaning
that differs from individual to individual.  Remember, species refers
to a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking after a
genus and consisting of organisms capable of interbreeding. 
			
>	... The dogs are consistent in doing that
> 	which THEY perceive to be for the benefit of their species, except
> 	on those occasions where self-interest takes precedence.  See below.

Consistency is not relevant here.  What the dog perceives is not
relevant (this narrow specific point here could use some clarification
to answer a possible objection which I previously hinted at, but unless
that objection is brought up, there's no need to further complicate
this). 

The dog may "perceive" himself to be acting as a speciesist, but he's
wrong.

> 
> [...]
> 
> >How do you draw conclusions about a "species" without studying
> >individual members of that species?
> 
> 	Obviously one cannot.  The trap into which you have fallen, however,
> 	is in the belief that the actions of one individual represent every
> 	member of the species.  This is the same trap set for us by anecdotal
> 	evidence, case histories, and poorly-done epidemiology.  It is the
> 	SUM of the actions of ALL members of a species which is speciesist,
> 	not necessarily the single action of one member in a specific set
> 	of circumstances.  Martin made no reference to individual animals;
> 	he specifically said "species," which is an inclusive term that
> 	excludes specific individual actions.

There are two conflicting possible interpretations of this paragraph:

(1) By using the analogy of case histories etc., then it appears you're
claiming that a conclusion about speciesism can be made by examining a
sufficient number of appropriately selected individuals and then
generalizing the observations.  (2) Yet the last sentence in your
paragraph suggests that there's a synergistic factor at work which
rules out a simple summation of specific individual actions. 

If (1), then keep in mind that I haven't been referring to the behavior
of a single canine individual.  It's been my observation that dogs in
general frequently give preference to non-canines over canines.  Have
you observed differently?  How many examples do we need? 

If (2), then the claim seems to treat "species" itself as an entity and
becomes trivially useless, since it has the form: X exists now, so X must
have been taking actions that would lead to its own survival.

> 
> 	It does not matter what this dog does in this situation; what matters
> 	is whether dogs, in general, do things which tend to sustain their
> 	species, ...

Obviously they do, as evidenced by their survival up to this point.  Does
this by itelf mean they are speciesist?  Is this the trivial point Martin 
was making?

>	...even if it's at the expense of another species.  It is THIS
> 	point which Martin was trying to make.  And it is THIS challenge
> 	which remains unrefuted.

Actually Martin made two claims, which are starting to blur together:

> >ry> Martin Hulsey wrote (or at least I _think_ he did...I deleted too much):
> >>>> 
> >>>>    All animals are speciesist
> >>>>    Humans are animals, therefore,
> >>>>    Humans are speciesist.
> >>>> 

and

> >mh> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
> >mh> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save
> >mh> members of another species.

Note that in the first claim ("All animals are speciesist"), Martin
seems to be referring to individuals.  If one single individual animal
of any kind at any time is not speciesist, then Martin can be said to
be wrong. 

The second claim is now looking more ambiguous.  Is Martin referring to
a straight sum of individual behaviors or to a synergistic sum which
could never be determined by examining individual behaviors?  Is he
simply saying: Those who don't kill themselves stay alive longer?

...................
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals