From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:33:32 GMT

In <Btrr79.25A@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>=======================================================================
>rl> On the other hand, let's suppose that the "Cosmos" is a mindless 
>rl> entity with no thoughts and feelings whatsoever.  In such a case, 
>rl> neither "life" nor "sentience" nor any other attribute of 
>rl> existence would make a difference to the Mindless-Cosmos-Itself, ...
>=======================================================================
>ry> 
>ry> If you'd stopped there, the discussion would be nearly finished,
>ry> because the next step is to say that, since nothing "matters" to the
>ry> cosmos, morals and ethics must originate from within ourselves,
>ry> and are therefore personal and individual creations which do not
>ry> necessarily apply beyond the "self" unless agreed to by a society
>ry> of like-minded members of our own species.  And even at that, they
>ry> imbue us with no absolute "right" to assign "status" to other
>ry> species and then insist that these assignments are universal, based
>ry> upon some cosmically irrelevant attribute.
>
>You're still assigning "status", Rich.    Consider the following two
>statements:
>
>   -- a "cosmos" is a mindless entity
>   -- a ball-bearing is a mindless entity
>
>Unless you're assigning some sort of special "status" to the 
>cosmos, there isn't much of a difference between these two 
>statements.  Would you mind explaining why it would make any 
>difference in our ethical decision-making (vis-a-vis animal 
>cruelty) whether a ball-bearing has a mind or not?  If you agree 
>with me that the mindlessness of ball-bearings and cosmoses are 
>irrelevant, then please cease and desist from appealing to
>mindless, hierarchical, non-existent authorities.  

	Russell, read the paragraph above, marked >ry>...PLEASE!  The
	answer to your strawman is right there:

	   1. the "cosmos" has no preferences, no ethics, no morals.  It
		follows, then, that these things all spring from only one
		source...the human mind.  They are, therefore, arbitrary,
		since they were not created from some "universal law."
		Morals and ethics are figments of human imagination, nothing
		more...and THAT is why I can say with total impunity that
		MY criteria for "animal rights" are just as valid as yours.

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

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

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

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

	It is this parochial view from "ted" which initiated the thread.

>One more request.   If it's wrong for others to allegedly
>assign "status" to individuals belonging to a taxonomic
>genus, family, or class, why is it right for you to assign
>"status" to the "like-minded" members of a particular taxonomic 
>species?

	There was no status assigned, only a recognition that, in a human
	society, morals and ethics are often determined by the majority.
	This has nothing to do with humans determining which non-human
	species are more or less "worthy."  Stick to the point, Russell.

>rl> Now it might be true that a mindless cosmos or a brick or a glass 
>rl> bottle couldn't care less whether murdering innocent beings is 
>rl> good or bad, but the lack of concern among such entities doesn't 
>rl> mean that ethical questions about murder are devoid of merit.  
>
>ry> Within the limits of human society, such questions may have merit,
>ry> but they have little to do with whether humans have any absolute
>ry> "authority" to say that the killing of one living thing is murder, but
>ry> that the killing of another living thing is not.
>
>As I've pointed out repeatedly, you're the person who keeps introducing
>the concept of absolutes into the discussion.  If it's your opinion
>that absolutes are meaningless, why do you continue invoking them
>in your arguments? 

	Absolutes are where it's at, Russell.  And I never said that absolutes
	are "meaningless."  What I HAVE said is that human moral and ethical
	judgements are not BASED on any universal absolutes...which is hardly
	the same thing as saying that "absolutes are meaningless."  This
	trick won't work for you either, I'm happy to say...please try not
	to misquote me and attribute to me things I did not state.

[...]

>rl> I'm not sure what you mean by "authority", Rich?
>
>ry> OK, Let me put it this way: who, or what, told you that you could
>ry> arbitrarily decide that a deer was more "worthy" or of higher "status"
>ry> than a garden slug?  Or that a panda is somehow worthy of more
>ry> "status" than the bamboo it eats?
>
>Are you still pretending that the sentience and sapience of pandas
>is an arbitrary consideration in our discussion of ethical values?  

	I'm "pretending" nothing; sentience and sapience are arbitrary
	measures of the "worthiness" or "status" of non-human species.

>If so, why would it have mattered whether or not the Cosmos is a 
>mindless entity? 

	Since the "cosmos" is mindless, it can't be the absolute source of
	morality and ethics you seem to crave.

	Why do you keep avoiding the question, Russell?  I'll ask it yet
	again:

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

>Either qualities of mind (ie sentience and sapience) truly make
>a difference as I contend, or, it doesn't matter that the Cosmos 
>is a mindless entity.  

	You are SO confused, Russell.  Qualities of mind are important ONLY
	TO HUMANS; they are ARBITRARY CRITERIA...the natural world doesn't
	give two hoots about sentience or sapience.  These questions have
	been asked and answered -- more times than I care to remember.

>ry> ...
>ry> I defy you to produce one scrap of evidence which shows that I
>ry> have "appealed to a higher authority."  In point of fact, I have
>ry> consistently asked to which "higher authority" YOU appeal for
>ry> authority to judge the worth of other species based on sentience/
>ry> sapience.  It may be revealing that no answer to this question
>ry> has been forthcoming.

	I note that the requested "scrap of evidence" isn't forthcoming.

>I contend that we can figure out basic things for ourselves, without
>relying on the testimony of "higher authorities". 

	Ah.  I see.  So, in the absence of some absolute authority which
	sets moral and ethical standards for us, we humans simply leap into
	the resulting void and generate our own, which then apply to the
	entire natural world.  Further, we choose Ted Wayn Altar, and his
	minion Russell Lawrence, as the ultimate authorities regarding
	our view of the rest of the natural world, i. e., "it's OK to kill
	THIS living thing, but not THAT one."

	At least you've finally admitted that there IS no higher "authority"
	from which we humans draw our moral and ethical imperatives.  Now,
	since your morals and ethics are, therefore, a creation of your fevered
	brain, explain to me why your self-created, and thus arbitrary to
	all but you, criterion of sentience is more valid than my criterion
	of simply "alive."

>Consider these two statements:
>
>   -- pandas are sentient and sapient
>   -- cosmoses are neither sentient nor sapient
>
>Why would the consideration of sentience and sapience be 
>arbitrary in the first statement, but not arbitrary in the second 
>statement?  

	I'd have thought this would be painfully obvious: in the case of
	the panda (or other non-human species) it is being used by humans
	to assign "worth" or "status" to another living creature.  In the
	case of the cosmos, it is simply a statement of fact that the cosmos
	has neither sentience nor sapience.

>ry> There IS no "higher authority", Russell, and any attempts to create
>ry> one are fictitious manifestations of human imagination...as are
>ry> assignments of "worth" and "status" to other species.
>
>Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there is a "higher
>authority".  For convenience, let's use the word "god" to label
>this individual.  In our future deliberations, would it make any
>difference whether this "god" has thoughts and feelings, ie sapience
>and sentience?   Would you say that a mindless "god" is more or less
>the same as a mindful "god"?

	If a sapient "god" DID exist, then you might have finally located
	the fictitious "higher authority" you so desperately need to justify
	imposing your moral and ethical standards on the rest of humanity.
	But since a sapient "god" is ALSO a figment of human imagination,
	your strawman is essentially moot...and your second question is
	irrelevant.

	Will you stop at nothing to distract from your discomfiture?  The
	answers to these last several questions are patent, and the questions
	themselves are irrelevant to the subjects at hand: by what authority
	do humans assign "status" to non-human species, and why is "sentience"
	a better criterion than "life?"

>ry> As far as my honesty in discussion, I think you'll find in a poll
>ry> that the huge majority of readers find my honesty of discussion in
>ry> this thread flawless, and that I have no NEED for an avenue of
>ry> escape.  You, on the other hand have come dangerously close to
>ry> an ad hominem attack in your statement above; if you wish to
>ry> continue debate, I suggest that you suppress this inclination in
>ry> future postings in this thread.  Your intellectual floundering does
>ry> not make me dishonest or desperate to find an "avenue of escape."
>
>You have a very high opinion of yourself, Rich.   This is a surprising
>characteristic for a man who loathes the assignment of "status".

	What has this got to do with the question at hand?  I can assign
	whatever status I like to myself...it's only when I assign it to
	other species and proclaim that I'm "correct" that there is a problem.

	You've either missed the point entirely, or you're engaged in a
	childish little snit.  In either case, the relevance of your
	statement to the discussion is nonexistent, since what I might
	think of myself is not at issue.

	Once again:

	   By what absolute authority do you presume to assign "worth"
	   or "status" to other species?

	   Why is your criterion of sentience more valid than my criterion of
	   "alive?"

	That is, after all, the subject of this thread.


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