From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:11:54 GMT


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?  

BTW, I've met some amputees with total kidney failure who might be 
described as "incomplete" organisms, yet we surely wouldn't 
discount their lives, as you've discounted the lives of 
brain-dead humans.  And why?  Because their brains still work, 
Rich.  They're sentient and sapient, and hence, their lives are 
just as meaningful as yours or mine in spite of the fact that 
they'd be history in a few days without dialysis hardware.  

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.   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.  

Ted Altar wrote:
twa> Insects are not of the same status as birds, repitiles (sic), and 
twa> mammals, nor are the latter equivalent in all respects to human 
twa> beings.  

Rich writes:
ry> To which I say:
ry>
ry> Who are we to say that insects are not of the same status as birds,
ry> etc.?  They are surely not as complex, but this is no better a
ry> criterion for "an (sic) rational ethical position" than many other,
ry> equally reasonable, criteria...all of which are arbitrary human
ry> assignments which have little basis except in our own desperate
ry> attempts to classify and pigeonhole our environment into comfortably
ry> familiar categories.

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?  

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, 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?  

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. 

ry> I also say:
ry>
ry> Why is my ethical standard of "life has worth" less valid than
ry> your standard (admittedly greatly simplified here, but no more than
ry> mine) of "only SAPIENT/SENTIENT life has worth"?

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.

ry> and then:
ry>
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.  

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