From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:39:36 GMT


Rich Young wrote:
ry> How shall we, as humans, recognize the existence of "meaning/sig-
ry> nificance/sense/mental_importance/etc" in non-human species? 
ry> Please describe the procedure step-by-step, so that there can be 
ry> absolutely no confusion.  

Russell Lawrence wrote:
rl> Gee, Rich.  It sounds like you're setting your standards a 
rl> little too high.  As most philosophers and scientists can
rl> testify, there's always a certain amount of doubt and confusion 
rl> in any empirical fact-finding adventure.   
rl>
rl> It's possible, of course, to know and understand "a priori" 
rl> concepts with "absolutely no confusion", but in such cases you'd 
rl> be dealing with definitions of your own design, rather than the 
rl> attributes of entities existing outside your own mind.

Rich Young wrote:
ry> ["...to know..."; interesting choice of words, isn't it?  But since 
ry> I have some intellectual integrity, I won't ask Russ to define "know" 
ry> because I understand the phrase precisely and have no reason to stall 
ry> by wasting bandwidth on such an inane request.]

Russell Lawrence wrote:
rl> Such a request would be entirely appropriate if I were the sort 
rl> of intellectual coward who retreats into solipsism to avoid 
rl> defeat while muttering [inane] questions like, "What is meaning?" 
rl> and "How will we know it when it happens?"

Rich Young wrote:
ry> solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its
ry> own modifications and that the self is the only
ry> existent thing.
ry> 
ry> Where do you GET this stuff, Russell!?  I have said nothing of the
ry> kind, and I defy you to prove otherwise.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> No problem.  Your previous questions, "What is meaning?" and "How 
rl> will we know it when it happens?" weren't atypical by any means.  
rl> Henceforth I'll be happy to point out the solipsistic elements in 
rl> your arguments.  

From article <1992Nov4.161144.8908@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> I ask you to describe for me how you make the determination of what is
ry> ethically acceptable for your plate and what is not, and you come up
ry> with "solipsism?"  

What you asked me was this (requoted from above):

=====================================================================
How shall we, as humans, recognize the existence of "meaning/sig-
nificance/sense/mental_importance/etc" in non-human species? 
Please describe the procedure step-by-step, so that there can be 
absolutely no confusion.  
=====================================================================

I've already explained the flaws that I perceived in your line of 
reasoning.  If you want to go over them, once again, I'll be happy
to oblige.

ry> This is so silly it barely deserves to be dignified
ry> with a rebuttal.  The inability to answer a direct question on your 
ry> part is hardly a basis for claims of solipsism.  Not that solipsism is 
ry> necessarily a Bad Thing(tm)...it's simply inaccurate as you've applied 
ry> it, just as you misapplied "reductionism" earlier.

So you say, Rich.

> ...
ry> This is an encouraging start; now, if you will please tell us by
ry> what authority you make the determination that eating meat is "wrong,"
ry> we will have progressed still further.  Indeed, we may actually see
ry> an end to this discussion.

rl> Bzzzt.  One minus point for you, and a big plus point for me, 
rl> Rich.  I've pointed out many times that the truth or falsity of 
rl> ideas can't be determined by appeals to "authority".  Yet, you're 
rl> asking me, once again, to identify an "authority" that is 
rl> allegedly responsible for my ethical judgments concerning the 
rl> goodness or badness of meat consumption.  Surely, you haven't 
rl> forgotten our long discussion about the Thinking Cosmos and the 
rl> Wizard of Oz.  

ry> Of course I haven't forgotten.  I'm merely trying to get you to say
ry> that the judgement of "right" vs. "wrong" in the matter of food choice
ry> is a function of your own personal thought process...which means that
ry> it's no more valid than MY thought process.

More solipsism?  Let's suppose that someone were to claim that 
the first president of the United States was Abraham Lincoln, 
whereas you might insist that the first president was truly 
George Washington.  Both your views and the views of your 
opponent would be (in part) a function of personal thought 
processes, yet this would not lead us to conclude that both 
views are equally truthful representations of reality.  

To put it simply, the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer might see nothing 
wrong with consuming Rich Young's heart for dinner, wouldn't take 
away the pain that Rich might experience during his own 
slaughter, nor would it diminish the loss that Rich's friends and 
relatives might experience if he were killed for food.  

ry> By happy coincidence, you've become angry enough to provide a 
ry> temporary lapse into truthfulness and have just said exactly that.
ry> Thank you for supporting my point.

I'm not angry, Rich.  And no, I haven't supported your point.  

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