From: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Chuck D'Ambra)
Subject: Re: Are sentience and sapience arbitrary ethical criteria?
Reply-To: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Organization: The Big Cracker
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:42:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.001403.2674@pixel.kodak.com>, young@serum.kodak.com writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.221259.22469@ncar.ucar.edu> chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu writes:

Rich, while my synopsis may be "close enough at first glance to suffice for
any discussion" we might have, perhaps you should state your position in
your own terms.

> >  He recently posted several alternative biological
> >classifications as examples of other possible arbitrary criteria.  I did not
> >save the article, but I believe all of the examples differ in that only
> >the presence or absence of sentience and sapience determine whether or not
> >an organism is capable of suffering and of caring about what happens to
> >itself.
> 
> 	I'm not quite certain of your point, but I'll take a stab at it, and
> 	you can correct me if I've misinterpreted you.
> 
> 	First, the list:
> 
> 	   1. Exothermic vs. endothermic
> 	   2. Placental vs. non-placental
> 	   3. Live-bearing vs. egg-laying
> 	   4. Sexually reproductive vs. asexually reproductive
> 	   5. Animal vs. plant
> 	   6. Single-celled vs. multi-celled
> 	   7. Eukaryotic vs. prokaryotic
> 	   8. Aerobic vs. anaerobic
> 	   9. Terrestrial vs. aquatic
> 	  10. Carnivorous vs. herbivorous

I think we would at least agree that the difference (whether or not relevant)
between sentience/sapience and the other distinctions does exist.

> 	OK, now if I read you correctly, you equate the presence of
> 	sentience and sapience with the ability of a living thing to "care"
> 	what happens to it.  [I apologize if I'm misreading you, but it's
> 	late, and I'm tired.]  How, then do we judge an amoeba's retreat
> 	from potentially life-threatening heat and light?  Does it "care"?
> 	Shall we, therefore, protect it from human predation?

The amoeba has some ability to sense its environment and react to it.  There
is no evidence of cognitive ability (sapience), so how could it "care"?
> 
> 	It would seem that your argument here is similar to that of Russell's
> 	when he claims that the life of a sentient/sapient creature has
> 	"meaning".  Russell has, thus far, declined to tell us exactly what
> 	it is that constitutes "meaning", so that we might apply these
> 	principles to all non-human species and effect judgement.  Perhaps
> 	you can help.

The issue phrased in the subject line is interesting (to me anyway) and
highly relevant to many of the topics discussed in this group.  Unfortunately,
I find that you and Russell have gotten caught up in peripheral points about
meaning, status, witches, etc.  You guys are welcome, of course, to continue
talking about whatever you like, but I'm not interested in pursuing that line.

> >Is it your position then, Rich, that capacities for suffering and conscious
> >self-interest are arbitrary criteria for ethical considerations?
> 
> 	From the standpoint of any non-human species you would care to
> 	name, sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria for humans to
> 	use when assigning ethical value to the death of one non-human
> 	species as opposed to another.

Considering that, as far as we know, ethics are exclusively a human concern,
why would the opinions or lack thereof of non-humans be relevant to this
discussion?

--------------------
Chuck D'Ambra
chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu