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: Sat, 10 Oct 92 20:43:58 GMT

In <Bvw1oG.n2@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>I don't understand why you think that the 
>importance of sentience and sapience in our ethical decision- 
>making ought to be measured with reference to "collective lives".  

	Because only in this way can we show that these criteria are
	NOT universal, but are basically anthropocentric, and therefore
	arbitrary.

>If my vet were to operate on one of the dogs that lives with me, 
>without using anesthesia, the dog would most assuredly consider 
>the experience to be unpleasant...  regardless of the impact or
>non-impact that such an incident might have on the "collection" 
>of all dogs.  

	So what?  Does the fact that your dog feels pain make its death
	any more important to a giraff than the death of the bacteria
	which lived in the dog's gut?  The fact that your dog suffered
	doesn't bother the giraff a bit.  Nor will the giraff be upset
	if YOU suffer and die, in spite of the fact that you revered its
	[the giraff's] sentience and sapience.

[...]

>1) I've pointed out repeatedly that you're the one who's "assigning
>   status", not me.   

	You've "pointed out" nothing; you've simply asserted without basis,
	and have been told by both John Van Etten and I that your assertion
	is in error.  Repetition does not increase verity...only the
	appearance of it, and then only to those who can't judge critically.

>2) So far, you presented definitions, not arguments, to support your
>   position.  It's kinda tough to "refute" definitions.  

	"So you say," to borrow a phrase.  I have explained precisely
	what I mean.  Others get it, and one has said so in public.
	You get it too, but you just can't stand to admit it.  I'll say
	this, though: the one thing you've consistently FAILED to supply
	is definitions.

>3) Thanks for admitting that you approve of anesthesia for animals.  
>   Do you recommend anesthesia for plants as well?

	I never mentioned "approval" or "disapproval", Russell.  Please
	don't attribute to me things I have not said.

	Of course not, but this is simply another example of your inability
	to view the world in any but anthropocentric terms.  By your logic,
	a tiger should anesthetize its prey before biting it, to prevent
	pain and suffering.

	If you go back through the history of this exchange, you'll find
	several instances where it has been stipulated that sentience and
	sapience may well be VALID criteria for humans to use, but that fact
	does not make these criteria any less ARBITRARY...which is the
	point of the discussion.  Your anesthesia example is a "red herring"
	because it addresses the validity of the criteria within a human
	frame of reference, not the basic arbitrary nature of those criteria
	as applied across species boundaries.  In-TER-species, Russell, not
	in-TRA-species.  How humans "feel" about things is just that: how
	humans "feel" about things; human thoughts, opinions, and classi-
	fications have no relevance to other species.  Furthermore, how
	SOME humans "feel" about things may not even have relevance to
	other humans...which is why we find ourselves embroiled here.

	When you can admit that YOUR set of ethics has no firmer a basis
	than mine in this area, then the discussion will stop.  I'll even
	make it easy for you: MY ethic of "all life is equally valuable,
	regardless of the presence of sentience and/or sapience" is, by my
	own admission, no more valid than YOUR ethic which classifies
	non-human species by the presence or absence of sentience and
	sapience.

	Keep in mind, however, that "valid" and "arbitrary" aren't synonymous.

[...]

>I'll respond to your (redundant) questions when you respond to 
>the answers that I supplied previously.  For starters:
>
>From Message-ID: <Bu2Jno.7Bx@wpg.com>

	[...Repetitious Russell strikes again...]

From Message-ID: <1992Sep17.185555.19963@pixel.kodak.com>

	[...Repetitious Rich supplies the response to Repetitious Russell...]


	...and Russell leaves the questions unanswered yet again.

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