From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 18:57:29 GMT

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 22:08:23 GMT

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.

	I trust that we can move beyond this issue now?  The examples fail,
	period.

[...]

>>>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.

[...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.  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.

[...]

>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.

>Let's consider the case of a white human man who is racist and expresses
>this racism by generally discriminating against non-whites.  If he finds
>some non-whites who will protect him and then subsequently favors these
>non-whites in conflicts against others (who include both non-whites and
>whites), then is it still really true to say that he is a racist?  If not,
>then by the same logic is it really valid to say that a dog who in some
>cases favors other species is a speciesist?

[...]

	See above.

>I would have to differ with this.  The concept of species is not an
>arbitary one.  If the dog can't consistently make adequate species
>distinctions, then I fail to see how we can ascribe speciesist behavior
>to him.  And if dogs in general can't make the distinction, then I fail
>to see how we can ascribe speciesist behavior to the entire species of
>canines and Martin's infamous syllogism takes a nosedive. 

[...]

	See above.

>When dogs base their selection of companions on behavior rather than
>strictly on species membership, then they are not acting in a speciesist
>way.  By saying that dogs prefer the company of others who ACT like dogs
>rather than who ARE dogs, you're strengthening the case against the
>existence of canine speciesism.

	See above.

>[...] If a dog pack contains human members and those
>humans help protect the pack from other canines, then those humans may
>be more significant to the propagation of genes than the threatening canine
>outsiders.  Hence the dog acts in a non-speciesist way to protect himself
>and to advance the prospects for propagation of his own genes.  This is
>not speciesist behavior.

	Sigh.  See above.

[...]

>> 	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.  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.

>> 	   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?  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.

[...]

>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.

	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, 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.

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals