From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:57:40 GMT

In <Bw6tD6.4AI@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

>[...]  ...you seem to think that you can dismiss the 
>role of sentience and sapience in ethical arguments.....

	No, Russell, you have it wrong yet again.  I've never said that
	sentience and sapience are not VALID criteria, I've only said
	that they are ARBITRARY criteria, and no MORE valid than a variety
	of other criteria.

	We first covered this on August 13th...I won't bother to re-post
	the appropriate passages, since you must know by now that I can.
	We've covered this more recently as well; try searching on the word
	"valid".

[...]

>....you seem to think that we can do a 
>nifty job of defining values more precisely by resorting to 
>criteria that would seem important to you, since you've invented 
>them, but may not be important at all to snails or cows.  

	No, Russell, YOU are the one insisting that sentience and sapience
	are criteria which are meaningful for assigning status to non-human
	species, not I.  [This would seem to be a fine example of Mary's
	definition of number 131, a flip-flop of position, i. e., you now
	find your original position untenable and try to pawn it off on
	me.]  Sentience and sapience are important to you, but may not be
	important at all to snails or cows.

	The only position I've advocated is "alive" vs. "not alive," a set
	of conditions which can be measured.

>[...]  In view of the fact that you're not afflicted with the
>"lexographic" disabilities that you perceive in me, I'm surprised 
>that you're so willing to quibble about terms like "meaning" and
>"significance".....

	Who's really quibbling here?  These definitions are crucial to your
	argument, are they not?  I ask you about "meaning" (I've never asked 
	about "significance") as you've used the term WITHIN THIS CONTEXT, 
	nothing more.  I have read what the dictionary says about the word, 
	but I want to understand the characteristics which define the term 
	when you say that your dog's life is full of "meaning."  I want to
	understand how I can take this example and apply it to other species.

[...transparent attempts at semantic distractions deleted...]

	If you are to argue successfully that the use of sentience and
	sapience as criteria to assign status to non-human species is NOT
	__arbitrary__, and subsequently claim that the assignments thus
	made should be adopted by the rest of humanity, then you must 
	address the following with honesty, or appear as yet another little
	tin "god" shrieking shrill opinions from the proverbial soapbox,
	desperately pleading for someone, anyone, to listen:

	   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