From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 17:59:23 GMT

In <BtCqvw.Br@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> If a brain-dead human doesn't give two hoots if we shoot him/her/it,
>rl> why would a brainless carrot mind if we pull him/her/it from the 
>rl> ground?  
>
>From article <1992Aug19.233231.8391@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> Because its sensory capabilities are intact?  Mind you, I'm not
>ry> claiming any particular cognitive capabilities for our proverbial
>ry> carrot.  As I explained in my last posting, the brain-dead human
>ry> is essentially irrelevant to the discussion, since it is an
>ry> incomplete organism incapable of sustaining itself.  
>
>You're contradicting yourself again, Rich.  If sentient/sapient 
>capabilities are arbitrary values, as you claim, why would it 
>matter if the alleged sensory capabilities of carrots are intact 
>or not-intact?  

	Clearly, recognition of humor is not your forte.  The carrot is a
	complete, self-sustaining organism; the brain-dead human is not, and
	is, therefore, irrelevant...not to his/her relatives, of course,
	but certainly to the function of the natural world.  When you
	remove the carrot from its natural environment, it will die [slowly],
	but then, so will you, if I bury you like a carrot.

	Let me say it another way: a brain-dead human is a fatally flawed
	organism, the carrot is a functional organism removed to a hostile
	environment.  Not only is the comparison of the "apples and oranges"
	variety relative to situation, but the subjects used for the
	comparison are not equally viable before the comparison is made.

>BTW, I've met some amputees with total kidney failure...  [...]
>[...]  ...they'd be history in a few days without dialysis hardware.  

	Exactly.  They are not complete, self-sustaining organisms and
	are therefore irrelevant to this discussion...not to their relatives
	and friends, but to this discussion.

	You seem to be desperate to confuse human society, technical skill,
	and cognition with some sort of universal ethical "value".  In the
	natural world, if you aren't capable of making it on your own as an
	adult, you [almost universally] cease to exist.  No life form is any
	more important than any other, no life "style" is any less "ethical"
	than any other, and no creature, except Man, is bothered with
	delusions of omniscient grandeur in assuming that similarity of
	structure and function have any real significance at all.  Let me
	hasten to add that this particular cognitive facility of Man gives
	him no more status or "worth" than the ability of a giraffe to eat
	acacia without injury to its mouth.  Different species have different
	"talents", based on their evolutionary niche.

>rl> This question has been asked and answered twice, now.  Might we 
>rl> return to the original question of whether humans have the right 
>rl> to assign value or "status" to other organisms?  
>
>You're the one who wants to assign status, not me.   Whether
>you think "god" looks like a deer or bear or Rich Young makes no 
>difference to my way of thinking.

	Oh, Russell, surely you're better than THIS?

	   1. YOU are supporting "ted's" original statement regarding
		assignment of status, not I.

	   2. Why are you now trying to bring in the supernatural with
		inane references to the appearance of some mythical "god"?

>What counts for me is whether or not we can determine the qualities that
>make life meaningful in various ways, so that we can build our ethical
>system accordingly.  

	How about, "...so that [I] can build [my] ethical system
	accordingly?"

	Please leave _me_ out of it.  Don't you dare to presume to speak for
	me on the matter of ethics in this area.

[...]

>Who are you to say that a brain-dead, but living human is "dead", 
>just because his "major sensory processing center" has ceased 
>to function?  Who are you to pretend that the life of a carrot is 
>worth protecting, just because its imaginary "sensory processing 
>capabilities" are still intact?  

	I'd have said [and in fact have, above] that a human with kidney
	failure was "dead" for purposes of this discussion as well.  The
	exact nature of the fatal flaw isn't what's at issue, it's the
	mere existence of the fatal flaw that makes the organism irrelevant
	to the discussion.

	Are you now going to argue that my claim that a carrot is worthy
	simply because it is alive is less valid than your requirement
	for sentience/sapience, based on similarity of structure?  I remind
	you once again that, without the "arbitrary" criterion of "life",
	sentience and sapience would not exist in our world.

	Also, I might point out that you are being rather cavalier with your
	use of terms: I have said that the carrot is no less "worthy", NOT
	that it is worth protecting.  Please do not put words into my
	proverbial mouth.

>If it's acceptable for you to "assign" varying degrees of "status"
>to humans and carrots in accordance with the condition of their 
>sensory processing capabilities, ...

	I have decided relevance based on ability to survive unaided; I have
	not "assigned status", and as I've said above, "sensory processing
	capability" was mentioned only because that's what you decided to
	bring up, not because it's important in its own right.

>... why is it wrong for Ted Altar to 
>point out that differing degrees of sentience and sapience among 
>different organisms might require us to evaluate the consequences 
>of our actions toward them accordingly?  

	It isn't, necessarily, until he assumes that his determinations are
	the only ones which carry any moral and ethical weight.  He, and you,
	are free to draw arbitrary lines wherever you choose on the evolu-
	tionary ladder, but don't get upset if others recognize that the
	lines you draw are, indeed, arbitrary, and do not form a basis for
	universal agreement.

>You've been pretending that "life" rather than sentience and 
>sapience is what truly counts in your book, and yet you 
>apparently don't believe your own claims since you contradict 
>yourself at every turn.  
>
>You've criticized Ted for using quite a few pidgeon-holes to 
>categorize organisms with varying degrees of sentience and 
>sapience, and yet, you yourself have a grotesquely simple set of 
>pidgeon-holes: one hole for thinking/feeling humans [brain-dead 
>humans and fertilized embryos excluded] and a giant hole for 
>every other organism, regardless of its thinking/feeling 
>abilities. 

	Where do get this stuff?  We __ARE__ in the same hole as "every
	other organism".  Brain-dead humans and fertilized embryos aren't
	[shall I say it yet AGAIN] biologically self-sustaining, and are,
	therefore, irrelevant.

	There __IS__ only one category: life.  Now you may call this
	"grotesquely simple", but I, frankly, prefer to call it "elegantly
	uncomplicated".  If it's alive, then it's as "worthy" as I am.
	Period.  If it's a non self-sustaining adult, it's dead, although
	it may not yet appear to be.  Period.  _I_ don't have to worry
	about similarity of structure, and complexity of development, and
	whether or not it "feels pain" before I can decide whether it's
	"worthy" or not.

[...]

>If life alone has worth to you, without regard to sentience and 
>sapience, why did you discount the life of a brain-dead man 
>simply because he's no longer sentient?   Surely you wouldn't
>consider killing a man with kidney failure, just because one
>set of organs had totally malfunctioned.

	Well, Russell, you're certainly consistent, if stultifyingly
	repetitive.  How many times do you want me to answer this question
	before you stop asking it?

	What _I_ feel about one human with kidney failure is __totally__
	__irrelevant__to__the__discussion.  The organism is fatally flawed,
	and therefore has no relevance IN THIS DISCUSSION.  Of course I
	wouldn't bury the kidney patient before the medics declared him
	dead, nor would I cremate the brain-dead before the rest of their
	body processes ceased, but what I would do in special cases, with
	members of my own species, has nothing to do with arbitrary
	assignment of "worth" based on a set of characteristics which
	have absolutely no significance to the natural world whatsoever.

	Understand this, because I'm only going to say it once more: a
	brain-dead human and a kidney patient are, without the tender
	ministrations of other members of the species, DEAD.  Mother
	Nature (if I may be allowed an illustrative personification)
	doesn't care whether they continue to exist or not, and since
	they cannot exist independently, would just as soon be done with
	them, but will suffer their continued use of resources as long as
	others members of the species will provide.

	What Russell sees as an inconsistency of thought is really a
	difference in perceived scope.  What Russell apparently cannot
	see is that Mankind is not a special case in Nature.  He is just
	another life form, no more or less "worthy" of existence than any
	other life form.  If Russell feels that sentience/sapience are
	important in his ethical framework, well, hey: whatever tilts his kilt.
	I, among others, do not happen to agree that the basis for Russell's
	ethical framework is entirely adequate as the basis for MY ethical
	framework.  I'll tilt my OWN kilt, thank you.

>ry> Why does "meaning" HAVE to exist in the universe?  
>
>It doesn't, but meaning does exist in our universe, as demonstrated
>by the fact that you and I are exchanging ideas at this very moment.
>
>ry> And to what "meaning" do you refer?  What is this "meaning" to 
>ry> which you seem to be so inextricably bound?  
>
>Any meaning at all, Rich.   Any meaning at all.  

	Drivel.  Pure drivel.  Define "meaning" and "meaningful" in terms
	which are not anthropocentric.  What IS "meaning" with regard to
	the universe?  I'll help you: "meaning" is an artificial construct
	of the human brain, and it has no significance outside that context.
	To talk about "meaning" in the natural world is hopelessly naive at
	best, and dangerously misguided at worst.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: alt.pro.whale.hunting,talk.politics.animals,talk.environment,sci.environment