From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:03:13 GMT

In <Bw2s9z.KBv@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>In <Bw12rG.6Ao@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Without referring to "cosmoses", collective lives, giraffes, etc,
>rl> please explain how/why you consider sentience and sapience to be
>rl> "arbitrary" criteria in determining the goodness or badness of
>rl> actions involving other beings.
>
>From article <1992Oct13.153853.15782@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> In other words, limit myself to an anthropocentric view, as you do?
>ry> No problem.  Without an explanation, a description, of that which
>ry> constitutes "meaning", assignments of status based on these criteria,
>ry> even WITHIN human society,  begin to be somewhat random, or
>ry> "arbitrary."
>
>I'm not "assigning status" to Rich Young when I recognize that he 
>has thoughts and feelings that deserve my respect.  To the 
>contrary, I'm merely recognizing capabilities that exist within 
>Rich Young.

	I thought you weren't going to do this any more, Russell?  We've
	been over this before, as the following will attest.  Remember
	this from <1992Oct8.224955.11938@pixel.kodak.com>?

++++++++++++++++++++++++QUOTED PASSAGE BEGINS+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   Do you actually READ my responses, Russell, or do you just think up
   some answer and type it in?  Note the following from a previous post:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Sep29.174553.8118@pixel.kodak.com>:

	To the extent that you simply recognize the existence of sapience
	and sentience in non-human species, you are absolutely correct; it's
	when you use these criteria to assign moral and ethical significance
	to various species that you run into trouble...you've then assigned
	a status to each species, i. e., "I can kill this one with impunity,
	but not THAT one."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Sound familiar, Russell?  It was only a week or so ago....[TWO weeks, now.]

   And then there's this from John Van Etten just today [8 Oct 92]:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <5ptzr2#@rpi.edu>:

>[...] Nobody is saying that you're assigning
>status by merely recognizing sentience and sapience, Russell.  If that
>was all you were doing, we'd all be happy and could move on.  But you
>*are* assigning status when you use that (or any other) criterion as
>the basis for life and death decisions for any being (i.e., what you
>are going to kill for lunch tomorrow, be it lettuce and tomatoes or
>whatever). [...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   This is not a difficult concept, Russell, so why is it that you seem
   to be alone in your misunderstanding of it?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++QUOTED PASSAGE ENDS++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[...]

>The fact that I cannot know with absolute certainty that Rich 
>Young has a mind with thoughts and feelings (ie meaning) doesn't 
>prevent me from treating him with respect, regardless of the
>particular "meanings" that may be running through his mind.  Nor 
>could my lack of certainty permit anyone to reasonably conclude
>that my respect for Rich's mind is "arbitrary".   

	What you say is correct, as far as it goes, but that uncertainty
	is a real problem, isn't it, Russell?  Even though you don't "know"
	what goes on in my mind, you're reasonably certain that I do have
	one, especially since I'm of the same species, so the drawing of
	conclusions is a reasonable action, based on similarity of structure.
	But what happens when you get to forms of life which are NOT
	similar?  Do your conclusions remain as reasonable?  I think not.
	All that can be said of dissimilar life forms is that their reactions
	to similar stimuli may not be congruent.  You most assuredly can NOT
	assume that these reactions are, therefore, less critical to the life
	form in question, or that the life form is not deserving of similar 
	"respect."

	Give me a metric, Russell.  How do we eliminate the arbitrary
	nature of your "meaning" test?  "Thoughts and feelings?"  What
	on Earth are "thoughts and feelings"!?  How do we know whether 
	"thoughts and feelings" exist in a non-human species?  We need
	OB-jective definitions, Russell, not these constant retreats to
	another list of SUB-jective terms.

>I'd be the first to point out that our knowledge of other minds, 
>whether human or otherwise, can never be definitive, but this 
>doesn't mean that our respect for other minds is random.  And 
>while it's true that we cannot know with absolute certainty that 
>a carrot does not feel pain of some sort, this weakness on the 
>part of our own finite minds should not prevent us from 
>recognizing that dogs apparently do feel pain, and hence, ought 
>to be treated kindly rather than cruelly.  

	No one has claimed that we are justified in treating dogs with
	cruelty; all that has been said is that perhaps we are hasty in
	treating less complex forms of life with less respect simply because
	we are ignorant.  Even YOU said this, as I recall...let's see now...
	...ah, yes, there it is: see <BuuEID.6I7@wpg.com> [Sept. 19th].

	Again, give me a measure by which I can apply your "meaning" test
	objectively.  If you cannot do even this simple task, then it is 
	clear that the test is arbitrary.  Even you have admitted above that
	"...our knowledge of other minds, whether human or otherwise, can
	never be definitive...."

	Respect for "other minds" is, indeed, not random......but how do we
	recognize the existence of those other minds?  What is "meaning,"
	Russell?

>ry> ...
>ry> Sentience and sapience are no more important to other species than
>ry> a variety of other characteristics.  
>
>No characteristic would be important to an individual lacking 
>sentience and/or sapience.  Metaphorically speaking, of course, 
>we might say that warmth is important to a bacterium, just as we 
>might say that oil is important to a ball-bearing, but in truth, 
>there's no reason for us to believe that either bacteria or 
>ball-bearings really care one way or the other.   

	A ball bearing is not alive; and bacteria do sporulate under life-
	threatening conditions...clearly a move made to preserve existence.

	Your thesis is a strawman.

>As for the notion that sentience may not be important to 
>non-human animals, ....

	"No more important" is not equivalent to "not important," Russell.

   [...remainder of illustration based on the above error deleted...]

>ry> Human use of them to make ethical judgements is arbitrary.  
>
>To the contrary.  To not recognize sentience and sapience is 
>arbitrary.  [...]

	Please see response at beginning of post regarding recognition
	of the existence of characteristics versus their use as criteria
	for assigning status to non-human species.

>Of course, it'd be easier for us to base an ethical decision on 
>something simple like the whiteness or blackness of fur, but the 
>simplicity of this definitive approach would reflect stupidity,
>not intelligence.

	But at least whiteness or blackness of fur can be established
	objectively.  Will you NOW answer these questions?

	   o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
		that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
		concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
		standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
		your values.

		So far, your arguments are rather like those against
		pornography: "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I
		know it when I see it."

	   o  Second, you need to tell us which external entity gave you
		the right to make life and death judgements of other species
		based on your ill-defined "meaning" test.

	   o  Third, you need to tell us the source of your absolute deter-
		mination that it is "wrong" to kill sentient/sapient animals
		for food.

	   o  Fourth, if the determination of "right" versus "wrong" in this
		area of discussion originates from within the confines of
		your own mind, you need to explain to us why we should
		blindly accept your judgement as absolute, or be relegated
		to that slag heap of humanity you use for those who do not
		agree with you.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals