From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:04:37 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're still assigning "status", Rich.    Consider the following two
rl> statements:
rl>
rl>   -- a "cosmos" is a mindless entity
rl>   -- a ball-bearing is a mindless entity
rl>
rl> Unless you're assigning some sort of special "status" to the 
rl> cosmos, there isn't much of a difference between these two 
rl> statements.  Would you mind explaining why it would make any 
rl> difference in our ethical decision-making (vis-a-vis animal 
rl> cruelty) whether a ball-bearing has a mind or not?  If you agree 
rl> with me that the mindlessness of ball-bearings and cosmoses are 
rl> irrelevant, then please cease and desist from appealing to
rl> mindless, hierarchical, non-existent authorities.  

From article <1992Aug31.183332.19951@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> 1. the "cosmos" has no preferences, no ethics, no morals.  It
ry> follows, then, that these things all spring from only one
ry> source...the human mind.  They are, therefore, arbitrary,

Why would an idea be "arbitrary" simply because ball-bearings
and cosmoses don't have minds?  Whereas I'm convinced that we
can use facts and reasons to test the accuracy and validity of
ideas, you seem to be saying that such testing is impossible
unless "higher" authorities truly exist.   

ry> since they were not created from some "universal law."
ry> Morals and ethics are figments of human imagination, nothing
ry> more...and THAT is why I can say with total impunity that
ry> MY criteria for "animal rights" are just as valid as yours.

Consider the following statements:

    -- it's good to give food to hurricane victims
    -- it's good to give food to stray dogs
    -- it's good to stick icepicks in the eyes of hurricane victims
    -- it's good to stick icepicks in the eyes of stray dogs

Since we both agree that ball-bearings and cosmoses don't have 
minds, would it be reasonable to assume that all of these 
statements are equally valid?   Please explain how/why such
ideas would be more or less valid if ball-bearings and cosmoses
could think.  

ry> It is precisely BECAUSE the cosmos (or ball-bearing) is
ry> mindless that I can say these things.

It seems to me that it's fallacious for a man to point to the 
stars as justification for his claim that a given set of ideas 
is arbitrary.  Be that as it may, if sapience and sentience are 
themselves arbitrary considerations, as you say, it seems to
me that you wouldn't be so concerned with the fact that the
cosmos is mindless.  

If you're suggesting that a sentient/sapient cosmos would be more 
relevant than a mindless cosmos, please explain why it's irrelevant 
whether chimps and carrots are sentient and sapient, as opposed 
to mindless.   Uh, please answer this question without assigning
"status" to cosmoses and chimps.

ry> 2. There is not now, nor has there ever been, an appeal to
ry> "mindless, heirarchical, non-existent authorities."  The
ry> fact that you think there HAS been is an accurate gauge
ry> of the level of your understanding of the point.  I use
ry> the terms only to illustrate the fact that human thought
ry> is ultimately as irrelevant to the natural world as sentience.

I agree with you that human thought is meaningless to mindless
entities, but this doesn't mean that all human thoughts are 
arbitrary.  The fact that a ball-bearing can't distinguish
between the statements,

    -- Rich Young is a human 
    -- Rich Young is a cow

would not lead us to conclude that both statements are arbitrary.

ry> In fact, it is YOU who would have us believe that humans
ry> have been granted some "divine" right to classify the various
ry> species and to judge which are "worthy" and which are not.

Nope.

ry> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, since no "higher
ry> authority" exists to set ethics and morals FOR us, then humans can
ry> simply usurp that authority and become "gods" for the rest of the
ry> natural world, and further, that this is the only valid view.

Nope.

> ...
ry> Who told you that you could arbitrarily decide that a deer is more
ry> "worthy" or of higher "status" than a garden slug?  Or that a panda
ry> is somehow worthy of higher "status" than the bamboo it eats?

No one told me that I could arbitrarily decide that a panda has a 
higher "status" than bamboo.  On the other hand, it still seems 
obvious that the ethical impact of sticking needles into panda 
and bamboo might depend on whether or not pandas and bamboo can 
feel pain.  

Incidently, I don't see any reason to believe that their ability
to feel pain would be enhanced or diminished by the discovery that
the "cosmos" can think.  If you disagree, please explain.

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