From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.204340.14985@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.184408.10342@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.215643.19998@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov4.190627.24936@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In article <ceqe02Zm29YI01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <1992Nov2.152851.20701@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
>>>>>hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
>>>>>> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save 
>>>>>> members of another species.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe the scope or sophistication of the question has not been fully
>>>>appreciated, but how does your hypothesis deal with actual recent events
>>>>like these occurring near my home:
>>>>
>>>>     1.Woman and children escape burning house.  Woman then dies of smoke 
>>>>	inhalation, after running back in to save pets.
>>>
>>>   Not a particularly good example.  First, the woman didn't KNOW she'd die
>>>   in the attempt.  Had she known, she might well have made a different
>>>   choice.  Second, she didn't attempt the rescue to save the pets, she did
>>>   it because she wanted to avoid the bad feelings which would result from
>>>   not making the attempt, i. e., she wouldn't have been "able to live with
>>>   the knowledge" that she might have been able to save the pets, but hadn't
>>>   tried.
>>
>>But Martin's question did not address the motivation of the behavior. 
>>He simply asked for an example of a "species that would sacrifice its
>>own members to save members of another species."
>
>	The word "sacrifice" implies intent with knowledge.  After all, if
>	you simply rush to your death, you're simply committing suicide,
>	and there need be no particular purpose beyond causing your own
>	demise.  The motivation you seek is implied in Martin's choice of
>	words.


In my dictionary, sacrifice involves giving up something valuable for
something deemed even more valuable - so point taken as far as "sacrifice"
implying some foreknowledge.  But that does not rule out the possibility
of a sacrifice here.  The specific motives - whether the woman gave up
certain safety and returned to the burning house in order primarily to
(1) "feel better" or to (2) "save members of another species" - don't
seem relevant IF she had foreknowledge that she was giving up her own
life or even placing herself at great risk.  It's not clear from my
example whether this foreknowledge was present.

>>Whether or not the
>>woman intended to sacrifice herself, she most likely knew that her own
>>death was a possibility....
>
>	"Possibility" and "certainty" are clearly not equal.  If I KNOW
>	that I'll be arrested for speeding, I'll choose not to do it, but
>	if it's only a possibility, I may well take the risk.
>
>>..... and for whatever reason she was willing to take
>>the risk for members of other species.  The result of her decision was
>>that her life was sacrificed. [...]
>
>	Her action proves nothing, unless it can be shown that she KNEW
>	she WOULD die (i. e., "sacrifice herself") in the rescue attempt.

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?

>>It's possible that Martin was hoping to show that all successful species
>>are speciesist by demonstrating that inter-species altruistic behavior
>>was nonexistent - when it came to the ultimate sacrifice.  However it's
>>debatable whether this approach will lead him to that endpoint. 
>
>	Clearly, I disagree.  Unless it can be shown that the sacrificial
>	creature in question had foreknowledge of its demise (not simply
>	an appreciation of the possibility), Martin's challenge stands
>	unanswered to date.
>
>[...]
>
>>>>     2.Pit bull attacks young girl while horrified family looks on.
>>>>	Family German shepherd intervenes between pit bull and girl,
>>>>	thereby slowing the attack long enough for help to be summoned.
>>>>	Shepherd dies but the girl's life is saved thanks to the extra
>>>>	time provided by the shepherd for help to arrive.
>>>
>>>   Another unfortunate example.  First, the German shepherd thinks that its
>>>   human companions are just strange-looking fellow members of the pack (at
>>>   least as far as anyone can tell).  Given this, it simply reacted in the
>>>   way ANY dog would act when a pack member is attacked by a member of a
>>>   different pack.
>>
>>It's interesting here how you seem to differ with Martin on whether all
>>species are speciesist, since under this explanation the shepherd is not
>>making a distinction based on species but one based on pack membership.
>>I'll be interested to hear his view on whether this disproves his "All
>>species are speciesist" hypothesis.
>
>	I'm not sure of your point, here.  I don't see a difference with
>	Martin at all: your example is simply not valid because there
>	is no INTER-species component, at least as far as the dog is
>	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? Can the
technique be applied to get inside a human's head also and resolve the
altruism question once and for all?

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).  

On the other hand if dogs can't distinguish between species, then it's
nonsense to refer to them as speciesists.  They may be "packists"
(favoring their own pack members on the basis of pack membership alone)
but they can't be speciesists.  (though I don't find this specific issue
to be particularly important ...)

>
>>>  Second, the German shepherd didn't know that the result
>>>   of its intervention would be its own demise.  Given a choice, many species,
>>>   and most who actually raise their young, will even abandon offspring if
>>>   that is what's required to maintain the life of the parents, so the
>>>   German shepherd's actions might well have been different had a threat to 
>>>   life been perceived as certain.
>>
>>Possibly, but I would claim (but I can't prove it) that the German shepherd,
>>like the woman, knew in advance that there was some significant risk.
>
>	Again, "risk" does not equal "certainty."  Refer to the discussion
>	surrounding the first example.

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?

>
>>>   Martin's claim stands.
>>
>>I don't think so - if he meant literally what he wrote.  He did not, in
>>the challenge he issued, introduce the idea of any motivation, whether
>>it be altruism or something else. 
>
>	And again, see above regarding motivation.
>
>[...]
>
>>Some questions:
>>
>>1.  How would pure altruism be PROVED?
>>
>>2.  How would the ABSENCE of it be proved?
>
>	I'm not qualified to even begin to address these, but I would
>	recommend the article in SCIENCE NEWS, Vol. 137, No. 17, April 28,
>	1990, as a starting point.
>
>	After that, you might consider the following dilemma.
>
>	Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
>	these:
>
>	   1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
>   		one performing the activity, or,
>
>	   2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>   		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. 

[...]

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