From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 22:49:55 GMT

In <Bvs58A.5pq@wpg.com> and <BvsG9x.8xz@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl>If you still believe that sentience and sapience are irrelevant
>rl>concepts, [...]
>
>From article <1992Oct7.212525.23214@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> As you've been told before, this is NOT my argument.  My argument
>ry> is that sentience/sapience are ARBITRARY CRITERIA for assigning
>ry> "status" to non-human species.
>
>As I've said many times before, I'm not "assigning status" when I
>recognize that an animal has thoughts and feelings.

	Do you actually READ my responses, Russell, or do you just think up
	some answer and type it in?  Note the following from a previous post:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Sep29.174553.8118@pixel.kodak.com>:

	To the extent that you simply recognize the existence of sapience
	and sentience in non-human species, you are absolutely correct; it's
	when you use these criteria to assign moral and ethical significance
	to various species that you run into trouble...you've then assigned
	a status to each species, i. e., "I can kill this one with impunity,
	but not THAT one."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Sound familiar, Russell?  It was only a week or so ago....

	And then there's this from John Van Etten just today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <5ptzr2#@rpi.edu>:

>[...] Nobody is saying that you're assigning
>status by merely recognizing sentience and sapience, Russell.  If that
>was all you were doing, we'd all be happy and could move on.  But you
>*are* assigning status when you use that (or any other) criterion as
>the basis for life and death decisions for any being (i.e., what you
>are going to kill for lunch tomorrow, be it lettuce and tomatoes or
>whatever). [...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	This is not a difficult concept, Russell, so why is it that you seem
	to be alone in your misunderstanding of it?

[...]

>Please explain why sentience and sapience would be "arbitrary" 
>considerations when we're discussing our treatment of non-human 
>entities, but "not-arbitrary" when we're discussing our treatment 
>of human entities.  

	First, let's clarify a bit: it's non-human SPECIES, not "entities"...we
	don't want to re-visit aliens and ball bearings.  Also, they're
	arbitrary CRITERIA for CLASSIFICATION or, as we've called it,
	"assignment of status."  As for treatment, we've already determined
	that our INTRA-species ethical considerations differ from our INTER-
	species ethical considerations, as exemplified by the question
	you never addressed: would you offer dialysis to a kidney-dead cow?

	This is clearly an attempt to distract from the issue using the
	tactic of attribution by assertion: Russell implies that someone
	has actually SAID something like this by making it a statement
	rather than a question.

>You've suggested in the past that ethical ideas aren't absolute simply
>because the "cosmos" hasn't endorsed them.  [...]
>
>Rich has claimed over and over again (ad nauseum) that such 
>criteria are arbitrary, but the presumably-now-abandoned 
>"explanation" that he offered up previously hinged on the 
>non-existence of a sentient/sapient "cosmos".  If I may 
>paraphrase, he said something to the effect that sentience and 
>sapience are arbitrary ideas because the "cosmos" doesn't share 
>them.  However, if the "arbitrariness" of any idea is measured by 
>the non-existence of a "thinking cosmos", we'd be obliged to 
>conclude that every idea is arbitrary... which flies in the
>face of empiricism and reason.

	Bless you, Russell, my boy...keep trying and one day you'll master
	the intricate nuances of your native (I assume) tongue.  From my
	last posting:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Sep10.004348.10673@pixel.kodak.com>:

	In an effort to forestall the obvious, let me point out that my use
	of terms like "cosmos" and "natural world" has been an attempt to
	gather all forms of life under one convenient term....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>In article <5ptzr2#@rpi.edu>, John S. Van Etten writes:
>jve> Since my definition of being is loosely "something which
>jve> is alive," there is no real "status" being defined while basing a
>jve> decision to kill something for food on whether or not it is indeed
>jve> alive.  All beings are equal...
>
>Would you kill and eat a human?   Or would you refrain from doing
>so because of your respect for the human's thoughts and feelings?

	In-TER-species, Russell, in-TER-species.  That's OUTSIDE the boundaries
	of the human species.  How often must we remind you of this!!??
	How we view each other has little to do with how we view the rest
	of the world.

	Once again: WOULD YOU OFFER DIALYSIS TO A KIDNEY-DEAD COW?

[...]

>Does a cow care if you kill it?  [yes]
>Does a cabbage care if you kill it?  [probably not]

	Please define "care" for us, as used in this context.

>If the cow objects strenously to your actions while the cabbage 
>couldn't care less, then the impact that your actions have 
>on each of them would be vastly different...

	No, the impact would be the same: they'd both be dead.

>....regardless of your
>mental feat in reducing both "cow" and "cabbage" to the level of 
>something that you can stuff in your face, ie food.  

	What "mental feat?"  You imply that there is something incredibly
	difficult in viewing another animal as food, and perhaps for you
	there is, but your hang-ups don't affect the rest of us.  Now, don't
	overwork your already-fevered brain and attach some nefarious moral
	significance to this: we ALL kill other living things to survive...
	...even you.

[...]

>To be concerned about the thoughts and feelings of other beings is 
>hardly an arbitrary consideration.

	True enough, but "concern" is one thing, and "attachment of moral and 
	ethical significance" is quite another.

>jve> In my opinion, sentience and sapience are valid (and there are many
>jve> others, of course) criterion on which to base our "treatment" of any
>jve> being.  
>
>Name some others.

	This SHOULD be unnecessary, but:

	   1. Exothermic vs. endothermic
	   2. Placental vs. non-placental
	   3. Live-bearing vs. egg-laying
	   4. Sexually reproductive vs. asexually reproductive
	   5. Animal vs. plant
	   6. Single-celled vs. multi-celled
	   7. Eukaryotic vs. prokaryotic
	   8. Aerobic vs. anaerobic
	   9. Terrestrial vs. aquatic
	  10. Carnivorous vs. herbivorous

	Shall we go on?  As John says, sentience and sapience are certainly
	valid, but they are certainly neither universally nor exclusively
	so.

[...]

>Is your life or death no different from the life or death of a 
>carrot?

	From whose point of view?  To my mother, my death matters quite a 
	lot, but the Prime Minister of England wouldn't care much, and to 
	ANY non-human species, it matters not at all whether the death of 
	a carrot or a human has occurred.  So once again: from whose point 
	of view?

	Now, we've been distracted long enough, so let us bring the debate
	back on track with several issues you continue to ignore:

	   o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
		that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
		concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
		standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
		your values.

		So far, your arguments are rather like those against
		pornography: "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I
		know it when I see it."

	   o  Second, you need to tell us which external entity gave you
		the right to make life and death judgements of other species
		based on your ill-defined "meaning" test.

	   o  Third, you need to tell us the source of your absolute deter-
		mination that it is "wrong" to kill sentient/sapient animals
		for food.

	   o  Fourth, if the determination of "right" versus "wrong" in this
		area of discussion originates from within the confines of
		your own mind, you need to explain to us why we should
		blindly accept your judgement as absolute, or be relegated
		to that slag heap of humanity you use for those who do not
		agree with you.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals