From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:48:23 GMT

In Message-ID: <1992Nov12.003217.14216@pixel.kodak.com>
> 
> In <1992Nov10.215213.5981@clpd.kodak.com>, Bob Black writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov2.152851.20701@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
>    hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> mh> 
> mh>  Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
> mh>  is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save 
> mh>  members of another species.
> 
> [...]
> 
> rb>      1.Woman and children escape burning house.  Woman then dies of smoke 
> rb> 	inhalation, after running back in to save pets.

[...]

> >If the woman had communicated, just prior to the rescue attempt, that
> >she knew she would die but was going ahead nevertheless, would this IYO
> >(or in Martin's) meet the challenge?
> 
> 	Martin DID say "species", not "individual", which implies an action
> 	common to the huge majority of species representatives and not just
> 	a suicidal few.  I submit that a vanishing minority of Homo sapiens
> 	sapiens would knowingly exchange their own lives for that of their
> 	pets.

I've already indicated to Martin an uncertainty as to whether I properly
understood his question.  I agree that few H.S.S would be likely to
knowingly exchange their lives for their pets.  I also think that few
(but probably not AS few) would do so for most other H.S.S. members.

> 
> 	In the case of this particular woman, her communication might well
> 	be the world's first documented case of altruism...assuming, of
> 	course that she wasn't doing it simply for the posthumous recognition
> 	she'd be accorded for making the attempt, and thus deriving personal
> 	pleasure from the anticipation of her impending fame.  Or perhaps
> 	she'd be motivated by the thought that she'd quite literally be unable
> 	to live with the knowledge of her pets' painful deaths, so what the
> 	hell: she'd die one way or the other and she might as well be a hero
> 	(to herself, if no one else) and go out in a rescue attempt.

But as you (or someone) have suggested previously, there would be no easy
way to determine the truth or falsity of her communication.

> 
> [...]
> 
> rb>      2.Pit bull attacks young girl while horrified family looks on.
> rb> 	Family German shepherd intervenes between pit bull and girl,
> rb> 	thereby slowing the attack long enough for help to be summoned.
> rb> 	Shepherd dies but the girl's life is saved thanks to the extra
> rb> 	time provided by the shepherd for help to arrive.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ry> 	I'm not sure of your point, here.  I don't see a difference with
> ry> 	Martin at all: your example is simply not valid because there
> ry> 	is no INTER-species component, at least as far as the dog is
> ry> 	concerned.
> 
> >First, how do you know this? How did you get inside the dog's head to
> >determine that he was unable to distinguish between species?
> 
> 	I'm not an expert in canine psychology, but the literature is rife
> 	with proposed theories of canine behavior with respect to humans,
> 	and most seem to agree that today's family dog is a product of
> 	millenia of breeding for neoteny (so it looks to US for food,
> 	rather than hunting for its own), and the cultivation of the
> 	"pack" instinct, which is what made them useful to us in the first
> 	place: they'd follow orders.
> 
> 	Cats (in general) are NOT "pack" oriented...and we all know how well
> 	THEY obey our every command.   :*/
> 
> 	This is pretty standard stuff, but it is, admittedly, still theory...
> 	...albeit one which seems to match the observed actions of domestic
> 	canines quite well, as many have pointed out.

Sure, but the question focused on the dog's ability to distinguish
between species and our ability to know that he has this level of
discernment.  Ever had a female canine in season approach you and show
all the body language indicating she would like you to breed her? (yes,
this is a serious question).  Do dogs believe that fellow (human) pack
members are of the same species? Would dogs make speciesist decisions
when forced to select between fellow human pack members and canine
non-pack members?

> 
> [...]
> 
> >Secondly, either dogs can distinguish between species or they can't.  If
> >they can, then the shepherd in the example was at the very least putting
> >himself in very great danger for a member of another species.  This
> >seems to threaten Martin's claim that all species are speciesist (or at
> >least that all members of all species are speciesist all the time).  
> 
> 	Not at all, as I see it: it has been proposed that ALL behaviors
> 	are undertaken to protect the ability to propagate one's own genes.
> 	This results in a kind of "hierarchy of importance" beginning with
> 	the individual and expanding outward in waves of lesser importance
> 	to those creatures which can affect said propagation of genes.
> 
> 	Members of one's own pack are clearly more beneficial to the
> 	propagation of one's genes than members of a pack which competes
> 	for resources, or even mating rights.  But even here, wolves (for
> 	example) don't regularly kill and eat each other as a normal source
> 	of food: the species is protected.  Other species, however, are
> 	"fair game."
> 
> 	I don't see that the general idea of "speciesism" is compromised in
> 	the least simply because self-interest supercedes it occasionally.

Occasionally?  Doesn't self-interest more often than not supersede 
speciesism when the two are in conflict?  Isn't speciesism just one
form of self-interest?

> 
> [...]
> 
> >If the shepherd had communicated, just prior to the rescue attempt, that
> >he knew he would die but was going ahead nevertheless, would this IYO
> >(or in Martin's) meet the challenge?
> 
> 	No...it's not INTER-species.

I was referring to a canid communicating to a hominid.  Why do you say
this is not INTER-species?

Dog / human --> inter-species, ... at least from the human viewpoint.
Only if the dog is incapable of distinguishing between species, would it
make sense to characterize this relationship as intra-species.  And if
dogs can't distinguish between species, what does being speciesist mean
here?

> [...]
> 
> ry> 	Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
> ry> 	these:
> ry> 
> ry> 	   1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
> ry>    		one performing the activity, or,
> ry> 
> ry> 	   2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
> ry>    		in the one performing the activity.
> 
> >It seems reasonable to me that every human activity probably CAN BE
> >explained by either or both of these two motivations.  But this does not
> >tell us that all human activity CAN ONLY BE explained by these.  Nor
> >does it tell us that all human activity IS driven by these.  Remember
> >that "can be" does not equal "is."  A big leap is needed in order to
> >bridge the gap. 
> 
> 	You're quite right, it's not PROOF, but if one verifies the presence
> 	of a particular microbe in every case of a given disease, then one
> 	would be silly to automatically assume that the disease is caused
> 	by another agent, would one not?  The mere presence of the microbe
> 	is not proof, of course, but it certainly bears investigation, does
> 	it not?  Similarly, if all human activity can be reduced to these
> 	two motives, is it not rather cavalier to dismiss them as irrelevant?

Dismiss as irrelevant? Yes that would be cavalier.  Accept as gospel?
That would be presumptuous, based on the fact that it may be impossible
to ever really know what goes on in another's head.  I also would
suggest that understanding motivation, with any degree of certainty, is
orders of magnitude more difficult than causally correlating a microbe
with a disease. 

> 
> 	Any human action, no matter HOW altruistic it may seem, can be 
> 	explained in selfish terms.  It seems unreasonable to deny this
> 	out of some misguided sense of human superiority.  We explain the
> 	actions of virtually ALL other animals in these terms, why should
> 	we be materially different?  Because our brains are more complex?
> 	Please.  The leap you envision may not be all that large.  Indeed,
> 	it would seem that a far larger leap is required to retreat from
> 	our non-human heritage.
> 
> 	One note of caution: we should not let our judgement be colored by
> 	the normally pejorative connotation of "selfish."  Instead, we should
> 	use the term to mean "for the benefit of oneself."  In addition, it
> 	should be noted that an act, even though demonstrably selfish in
> 	motivation, may well prove to be beneficial to others, or even other
> 	species.  Rescuing a stray cat, for example: the motivation would be
> 	the avoidance of the guilt one would feel at ignoring the cat's
> 	plight, but the cat benefits nevertheless.


In  Message-ID: <1992Nov18.150737.17782@pixel.kodak.com>
> 
> In article <1992Nov17.220854.16404@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> 
> Martin Hulsey wrote (or at least I _think_ he did...I deleted too much):
> 
>    All animals are speciesist
>    Humans are animals, therefore,
>    Humans are speciesist.
> 
> >The problem with this is that it's not a species-specific claim.  You
> >could replace "species" with family or pack or other sub-groups or
> >cross-groups, and make all the same statements.  You're merely saying
> >here that humans tend to give preference to those closest to them. 
> 
> 	Perhaps, perhaps not.  The real question is this: is the statement
> 	wrong as presented?  ...

My guess would be that it's wrong some of the time but not all the time. 

>	...The simple fact that humans may place higher
> 	or lower priorities on other inter- and intra-species groups in no
> 	way invalidates the claim that, among other things, humans are
> 	speciesist.  The logic used does not exclude the other considerations
> 	you mention.

No but it suggests that acting in a speciesist manner is subservient to
acting in one's own self-interest, whenever the two conflict.

> 
> >Also, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in claims like these,
> >if your intention is to cite animal behavior as a justification for
> >human behavior.  If non-human animals are so worthy as to serve as
> >ethical and behavioral guides for humans, then why is it right for
> >humans to kill them for our own purposes?
> 
> 	Again, the real question is this: why is it NOT right for humans
> 	to kill other animals for our own purposes, given that other animals
> 	do exactly that?  ...

For many of the same reasons that it's not right for humans to kill other
humans.

Is it right for humans to torture other animals for our own purposes?

>	The point is that, as animals, we are not exempt
> 	from the motivations which drive non-human animals...and non-human
> 	animals kill other species (even humans) regularly for their own
> 	purposes.

Nor are we necessarily *restricted to* only those motivations which drive
non-human animals. 

> 
> [...]
> 
> -Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.