From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should Humans assign status?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:31:31 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ...let me remind you that I made it clear that I would respect the
rl> sentience and sapience of all beings, even those that might not
rl> be "alive" in the conventional sense.

Rich Young writes: 
ry> Indeed, you DID say that...and then went on to say that, in the case
ry> of mammals and birds such differences did not exist, thereby basing
ry> your judgement of worth IN THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT on similarity of 
ry> structure.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Wrong, Rich.  I judge actions on the basis of the impact that they
rl> may have on sentient/sapient beings... not on the basis of similarity
rl> of structure.

From article <1992Sep29.152514.3890@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> And why do you limit yourself to the "impact they may have on
ry> sentient/sapient beings?"  __Because__you__only__recognize__sen-
ry> tience__and__sapience__as__occurring__in__animals__with__similar__
ry> physical__structure__.  You've SAID this, don't try to change
ry> this horse in mid-stream.

Wrong, Rich.

ry> In <Bszov2.E58@wpg.com>, you said:
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ry> ...it won't make much sense for you to turn around and pretend that rats
ry> cannot suffer and that the similarity between humans and rats is a "false
ry> god".
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right.  I was disputing your claim that structural similarities are my
"false god".   The fact of the matter is that an entity must be 
sentient or sapient in order to perceive or evaluate an action as 
good or bad.  It's irrelevant whether the entity is structurally
similar to you and I.

rl> You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that you value one 
rl> class of chemicals (ie "life") more highly than other chemicals
rl> (ie, non-living entities), simply because of similarities between 
rl> those chemicals and the chemicals found in humans.   

ry> So what?  I have chosen a line of demarcation with which everyone
ry> can agree (at least until we get to prions and retroviruses), and
ry> which can be measured and analyzed.  You insist on using some
ry> metaphysical criteria ["meaning"] which you can't even define,
ry> but which requires the presence of the equally metaphysical
ry> "sentience" and "sapience."

I don't agree with your line of demarcation.  Let me know when 
the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Carrots gets its first 
member so that I can congratulate you on the growing popularity of 
your concept.

rl> If it just so happened that all sentient/sapient beings had three 
rl> eyes, I'd still base my judgments on sentience/sapience, and not 
rl> on the presence or absence of three eyes.  In such a case, I'm 
rl> sure you'd try to confuse the issue by claiming that I worship 
rl> eyes that come in sets of three.  

ry> Unlike you, I don't claim that you "worship" anything; nor do I
ry> much care.  What I claim is that sentience and sapience are arbitrary
ry> criteria upon which to base a system of ethics and morals.

I'll believe you when you can explain how actions could be judged 
as good or bad by an entity that lacks sentience and sapience.  

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