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: Tue, 1 Sep 92 22:55:42 GMT

In <Btwx43.2BB@wpg.com>, RUssell Lawrence writes:
>
>From article <1992Sep1.145225.1283@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> The EXISTENCE of sentience/sapience is fact;  the USE OF THESE 
>ry> CHARACTERISTICS AS A YARDSTICK FOR ASSIGNMENT OF "WORTH" OR 
>ry> "STATUS" is arbitrary, since, from the standpoint of the natural 
>ry> world, neither of these characteristics is any more important 
>ry> than a host of other characteristics.  
>
>You've already admitted your belief that the "natural world" is 
>mindless.  And I believe that you probably agree with me that 
>ball-bearings are also mindless.

	I'm with you, so far.

>  As such, it doesn't make sense 
>for you to declare than any idea is arbitrary, simply because 
>it's not endorsed by natural worlds, ball-bearings, and other 
>mindless entities.

	Oops.  Lost you here.  This isn't what I've said.

	I said that use of sentience/sapience as yardsticks to assign
	"worth" or "status" to non-human species is arbitrary.

>  For someone to declare that an idea is "arbitrary"
>simply because ball-bearings, bricks, cosmoses, etc, are unable
>to grasp the idea is, in effect, a perverse, twisted appeal to 
>a non-existent authority.  

	No, it's a non-anthropocentric view of the world.  The natural world,
	or "cosmos" as I have called it, doesn't revolve around the thoughts,
	actions, and judgements of Man.  We are just another animal: no more,
	no less.

	To assign some sort of "worth" to a living creature based on some
	arcane human notion and assume that this assignment is somehow 
	"correct" because the notion is assumed to apply beyond humanity
	is, in fact, a perverse, twisted, and unjustifiable deification
	of Man.

>Sentience and sapience are not arbitrary notions when it comes to 
>evaluating the goodness or badness of an action.

	BUT THEY ARE MEANINGFUL ONLY TO HUMANS!!!!  Not to deer, or frogs,
	or oak trees.  They are, therefore, arbitrary criteria, in the
	context of deciding whether one organism is more "worthy" than 
	another.

	As I've said before, they may be VALID, but they are still
	ARBITRARY.  And they are not necessarily any MORE valid than a 
	wide variety of other criteria.

>  As everyone 
>who's followed this discussion ought to realize, the notion of 
>goodness or badness or any other kind of "worth" would be 
>meaningless if sentience and sapience were non-existent qualities.  

	This is a non-sequitur...and wrong, too.  A notion of "goodness"
	or "badness" would have as much meaning if based on hair color
	or religion.  But please note how you've once again retreated to
	the anthropocentric view and left all species but Man out in the
	proverbial cold.

>If we're going to define "status" and "worth" from the mindless 
>perspective of a ball-bearing or a cosmos, then we ought to say 
>that the idea of "status" is non-existent...  not that it's 
>arbitrary.

	"Status," as far as the relative "worth" of species is concerned,
	IS non-existent from the mindless perspective of the natural world,
	but it's the use of anthropocentric criteria by humans to assign
	it to other species that's arbitrary.  I have never said that the
	concept of "status" itself is arbitrary in all applications.

>Lest someone think that "status" is a particularly 
>vulnerable concept in this regard, let's be broadminded and point 
>out that all other ideas would be equally non-existent to 
>mindless entities.  The idea of Rich Young, for example, doesn't 
>exist for ball-bearings.

	Absolutely correct.

>  To say that Rich Young doesn't have special 
>"status" where ball-bearings are concerned is a grotesque 
>understatement.  

	Are we beginning to feel frustrated again, Russell?

>In short, I doubt that any serious thinkers would believe that
>the ethical consequences of:
>
>   -- whacking dogs with hammers
>   -- whacking carrots with hammers
>   -- whacking ball-bearings with hammers
>
>are "arbitrary" considerations simply because the "cosmos" can't 
>perceive any difference between these actions.

	What do ANY of these actions mean to [insert favorite non-human
	species here]?  This is, again, a totally anthropocentric view,
	not something which can be applied to the natural world as a whole.

>  If you wish to 
>insist that it's wrong to say that the dogs have more "status" 
>than carrots and ball-bearings, that's fine with me, but in such 
>a case, please be prepared to specify a word that the rest of us 
>can use to describe the obvious differences between dogs, 
>carrots, and ball-bearings with respect to pain and suffering.  

	How about dogs are different from carrots which are different from
	ball bearings which aren't even alive [and therefore are irrelevant to
	the point]?

	By what authority do you presume to assign "status" to non-human
	species based on these differences?

	Why is your criterion of "sentience" any more valid than a criterion
	of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or "ability to synthesize
	glucose?"


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