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 23:21:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.205442.7948@pixel.kodak.com>, young@serum.kodak.com writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.154221.5619@ncar.ucar.edu> chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu writes:
> >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:
> 
> 	Fair enough.  Sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria for
> 	assigning status (or "ethical relevance") to non-human species.
> 	I say this because ethics are a creation of the human mind and
> 	have no significance outside the bounds of human society.  Indeed,
> 	particular ethics may not have universal acceptance WITHIN human
> 	society.  In the case of our treatment of non-human species, the
> 	arbitrary nature of using sentience and sapience to assign status to
> 	non-human species stems from the fact that there is no absolute,
> 	significant-to-all-species criterion for the principles of "right"
> 	and "wrong."

We may have a semantic problem here.  Consider the following excerpt from
Webster's Third International Dictionary for the entry "arbitrary":

  "based on random or convenient selection or choice rather than on reason
   or nature"

An arbitrary criterion is one that is random, capricious or non-rational.
None of the other definitions of arbitrary imply that it's the opposite of
absolute (by all means let us know if you find such a definition).  The
term "relative" would seem more appropriate.

Furthermore, the concept of a "significant-to-all-species criterion for the
principles of 'right' and 'wrong'" is meaningless (sorry 8-) ) when we know
of no other species that considers such principles.  There may or may not
be absolute ethical standards, but we are not going to find the truth of the
matter by examining the (absence of) opinions of other species any more than
we could use them to establish the validity of Einstein's relativity theories.

> 	Since assignment of ethical relevance is a uniquely human activity,
> 	and since there is no absloute standard for "right" and "wrong,"
> 	the use of ANY criteria to perform such classification and make
> 	such judgements must be arbitrary machinations of the human mind.

Where we might agree is that I would contend that ethical standards must
be based on some underlying values.  Given such values one can develop
ethical standards by a rational (non-arbitrary) process.

[ list of other possible criteria ]

> >I think we would at least agree that the difference (whether or not relevant)
> >between sentience/sapience and the other distinctions does exist.
> 
> 	I'm not so sure we WOULD agree.  Sentience and sapience is simply
> 	another set of biological properties with which we might classify
> 	non-human life.  These characteristics have no more inherent
> 	significance than the ability of an animal to regulate its internal
> 	temperature, for example.  Sentience and sapience are simply
> 	characteristics which apply to one group of living things and not
> 	another.

My point was that, unlike the other distinctions, the presence or absence of
sentience and sapience determine whether or not an organism is capable of
suffering and caring what happens to itself.  Are you really disagreeing
with that point?  It would seem that the issue is whether or not these
abilities have a non-arbitrary ethical significance.

> >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"?
> 
> 	Depends on what you mean by "care," doesn't it?  If you're talking
> 	about the classical dictionary definition, it clearly can't, but
> 	it we allow some latitude, the fact that it acts to save its life
> 	becomes the amoebic equivalent of "caring," does it not?  If you
> 	have some other, non-anthropocentric, term for this, feel free to
> 	suggest it and we'll dispense with the word "care."  I'm not
> 	interested in debating whether the dictionary definition applies,
> 	but rather the implications of a living thing taking action to
> 	avoid loss of its life.

The amoeba has evolved with a moderately complex set of physio-chemical
reactions that allow it to react in the manner it does.  While the cognitive
abilities of other organisms also have physio-chemical underpinnings, they're
hardly the same thing.  React != care.
> 
> >> >Is it your position then, Rich, that capacities for suffering and conscious
> >> >self-interest are arbitrary criteria for ethical considerations?

Is the short answer yes?

> >> 	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?
> 
> 	If ethics are strictly a human concern, and if they stem from
> 	opinions rather than extra-species absolutes, then the opinions
> 	of one human regarding food choices are as valid as the opinions of
> 	another and AR people have no business making ethical pronouncements
> 	regarding the morality of other people based on their own opinions,
> 	as in, "it's WRONG to eat meat."

First, please realize that I am making no such pronouncement.  Now if we
accept your statement, Jeffrey Dahmer's food choices are as valid as yours
or mine.  Nearly all people will disagree with such a conclusion, whether
or not there are any extra-species absolutes, and I don't think such
opinions are formed arbitrarily.
> 
> 	It may well not be a good idea, but who are [collective] you to
> 	pronounce me morally bereft if I do it?  Ignorant, perhaps, but
> 	WRONG?

Any pronouncement of right or wrong (some prefer "better or worse") must
be based on moral or ethical standards.  If I understand you correctly,
you are saying that there are no absolute ethical standards and therefore
no right or wrong beyond what each individual believes.

--------------------
Chuck D'Ambra
chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals