From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:51:35 GMT


Rich Young writes:
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.
ry>
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> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

From article <1992Sep30.212654.4154@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Oh?  Let's supply a bit MORE of your statement:
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ry> From <Bszov2.E58@wpg.com>:
ry> ...given the similarity between rat brains and human brains, it 
ry> won't make much sense for you to turn around and pretend that 
ry> rats cannot suffer and that the similarity between humans and 
ry> rats is a "false god".  
ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ry> 
ry> Looks to ME like you're arguing that similarity of structure is
ry> NOT a "false god."

Does the term "equivocation" mean anything to you?

Let's look at the whole statement, without your creative editing:

=================================================================
If you really believe that similarity of structure and function 
is a false god, as you say, why do you advocate drug testing on 
mammals?  If you're going to tell us that it's reasonable to test 
the effectiveness of analgesics on rats...  given the similarity 
between rat brains and human brains, it won't make much sense for 
you to turn around and pretend that rats cannot suffer and that 
the similarity between humans and rats is a "false god".  
=================================================================

Careful readers will notice that I was taking issue with the 
inherent hypocrisy in your position, not declaring some sort of 
reverence for structural similarity.  In truth, I consider your 
allegation that structural similarity is my "false god" to be 
irrational.  That's *not* to say that structural similarity is my 
"true" god.  

As I stated previously, I'd be opposed to the torture of a rat 
for the simple reason that rats apparently feel pain, not because 
their brains are similar to the brains of humans.  It's
true that structural similarities may enter the discussion when 
someone like yourself argues that rats don't feel pain, but
in such a case, we're dealing with a different question, namely:

     How do we know that rats feel pain?

                   - not -

     Why is it wrong to torture rats?

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