From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:06:20 GMT

 
Craig Boeker writes:
cb> Basically, I think the decision on this type of thing should occur in the
cb> following manner:
cb> 
cb> 1) the individual.  Either through concious decision (sound mind and body,
cb>    etc.) or living will.
cb> 
cb> 2) the family of the individual.
cb> 
cb> 3) if no family exists then the state must have some policy regarding
cb>    how long to provided life support.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> All three of these decision-making routines depend on sapience, 
rl> but Rich has argued repeatedly that sentience and sapience are 
rl> "arbitrary" criteria.

From article <1992Oct1.213921.21915@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> ...for assigning status to non-human species.  Please finish the
ry> statement, Russell.  Mr. Boeker is talking about something completely
ry> different.  He came late to the discussion and has missed some of
ry> the salient points...not his fault, and no offense taken or meant,
ry> but true nonetheless.

Please explain why sentience and sapience would be arbitrary 
considerations when we're making decisions that affect non-human
animals, but not-arbitrary when we're making decisions that 
affect human animals.  

Permit me to anticipate your standard response, namely, that such
considerations don't matter to the "cosmos".  Yes, yes, we know 
that the mindless "cosmos" doesn't care about sentience, one way 
or the other, but cosmos-finger-pointing distractions could apply 
to any idea pertaining to any topic.  For example, the "cosmos" 
doesn't care about the national deficit, or world hunger, or 
racism;  yet, it'd be foolish to say that all our facts and 
arguments dealing with such topics are "arbitrary" simply because 
the "cosmos" may be insapient, and hence, unable to evaluate 
them.  In short, the "authority" of the cosmos isn't an adequate 
means of testing the truth or falsity or relevance of an idea.  

rl> I suspect that Rich had the right idea when he wrote the following:
rl> 
rl> ======================================================================
rl> The phrase "brain-DEAD" [emphasis added] sums it up quite nicely:
rl> he's not really "alive".  His major sensory processing center has
rl> ceased to function.   
rl> ======================================================================
rl> 
rl> However, he back-tracked when he realized that he had inadvertently
rl> acknowledged the importance of sentience (sensory ability) and 
rl> sapience (cognitive ability).

ry> Context, Russell, context.  There's no back-tracking here.  You
ry> asked about a brain-dead HUMAN; the discussion was (and should
ry> still be) about assignment of status to non-human species.  Your
ry> question was (and is) irrelevant.  

No, it's not irrelevant, Rich.  I don't accept your notion that
structural dissimilarities between human animals and non-human 
animals will justify your callous disregard for the thoughts
and feelings of non-human animals.

> ...
rl> Is it ok to kill a kidney-dead human?  Please clarify your position.

ry> Who cares re the subject of this discussion?  Even if I do as you
ry> ask and "clarify" (which should be unnecessary, since I've already
ry> given the answer), what additional insight would it provide regarding
ry> the human assignment of status to NON-HUMAN species?

Is it ok to kill a kidney-dead human?   If no one else cares about your
answer, they're free to hit the 'n' key.

> ...

[re: false gods of structural similarity]

ry> You've pointed to what you consider to be a similarity and then
ry> told me I'm wrong when I say it's a "false god".  If it's not a
ry> "false god," then it must be a "true god," eh?  ...

Binary logic strikes again.  If you were to deny the absurd 
notion that your family worships dead butterflies, would it be 
reasonable for the rest of us to conclude that your family 
worships live butterflies?  

I've stated repeatedly that I would respect the sentience and 
sapience of any entity...  regardless of its structural 
foundations.  You, on the other hand, have evidently adopted the 
notion that sentience and sapience are irrelevant considerations 
when an entity doesn't have an anthropic shape and form.  Why
do you persist in claiming that I share your notions?

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