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, 30 Sep 92 21:26:54 GMT

In <BvCxIz.A1G@wpg.com>, <BvD4Fy.14C@wpg.com>, <BvD4ty.1Ft@wpg.com>, and
 <BvCx0n.A0C@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> I'm still waiting for to to explain why it's ok for you to kill a 
>rl> brain-dead man, but not ok for you to kill a kidney-dead man.   
>
>From article <1992Sep29.152858.4025@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> In the first place, I've never said "it's OK to kill a brain-dead
>ry> man, but not OK to kill a kidney-dead man."  This is a creation
>ry> of your own mind, and proof to the contrary has yet to be shown.
>ry> 
>ry> I HAVE said that these two examples are similar in that they're
>ry> both fatally flawed, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion,
>ry> which is not the same thing at all, is it?
>
>Perhaps, but I'm unwilling to accept your claim that an argument is
>true or false or "fatally flawed" just because you say so.  After all,
>you're not a god, Rich.

	And that's your prerogative, of course.  I never said that you had
	to accept my arguments.  I merely ask that you don't try to discredit
	them by misrepresentation.  Attribution of statements not actually
	made is VERY poor debating technique.

>> ...
>ry> You're trying to confuse us with the application of INTRA-species
>ry> ethics, while the question at hand is about the EXTRA-species
>ry> application of personal, human morality.
>
>This sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me, Rich.

	Perhaps it is, but please remember that the discussion started with
	the following statement:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <altar.713493440@sfu.ca>:

>>Insects are not of the same status as birds, repitiles (sic), and mammals...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Clearly, this does not refer to ethical considerations within human
	society, but rather the assignment of status to non-human species.
	The discussion is clearly INTER-species in scope and intent, so
	while the distinction may well be arbitrary, it is the determining
	factor in the scope of the debate.

>What's the basis for your claim that "INTRA-species ethics" ought to be
>based on different principles than "EXTRA-species ethics"?   Your "false
>god of structural similarity", perhaps?

	The actions taken by a particular species to insure its survival
	may well differ from those which promote optimal survival of some
	other species.  The same applies to individuals, e. g., if I'm
	starving to death, I'll eat the last elephant on earth to stay
	alive.  Similarly, whale sharks will continue to consume zooplankton
	until none remains...they will them become extinct themselves, of
	course, but the morality surrounding the extinction of zooplankton
	is irrelevant to them.  We see this principle at work all the time
	in the boom/bust cycles of predator/prey populations, although
	extinction is not the usual outcome.

	What we're talking about is the relationship of one animal (humans)
	with the other living things with which it finds itself surrounded.
	I may well protect, feed, and support my kidney-dead brother, but I
	may also kill the last elephant on earth to do it...if that is the
	only reasonable option.

	Thus, INTRA-species ethics are clearly different from the INTER-species
	ethics we are discussing.  The determination of INTER-species ethics
	based on structural similarity is an anthropocentric attempt to
	apply INTRA-species ethical principles to a world which neither needs
	nor values human thought.

	I have explained this before, and in fact, you recently quoted
	some passages from my postings which refer to this; I trust that
	the issue is settled now?



>ry> ======================================================================
>ry> Let me try to explain this once again.  To the cosmos, a brain-dead,
>ry> or kidney deficient, or liver-failed, etc., human is effectively
>ry> dead.  It is a non-functional organism.
>ry> ======================================================================
>ry
>ry> [Russell's tactic #206 (Mary Otto has graciously assigned me the
>ry> 200-series): make some officious comment which has nothing to do
>ry> with reality and hope that it distracts his opponent.]
>
>Who do you think you're fooling?  

	You did, I believe, assert that I had said it was OK to kill the
	brain-dead but not the kidney-dead, did you not?  In spite of the
	fact that I had never made any such assertion?

	Perhaps it is YOU trying to fool US.

>From article <1992Sep29.174553.8118@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>> 	Oh, please, Russell.  "Shedding crocodile tears for carrots?"  Cut
>> 	the histrionics.  As for "whom," I point out that I've been asking
>> 	YOU to supply the identity of who- or what-ever gave you the authority
>> 	to make judgements of the worth of non-human species for weeks.
>> 	I can only assume that, since you've not answered, such authority
>> 	was not bestowed upon you but was taken by you.  You've appointed
>> 	yourself the Indisputable Judge of Ethical Worth.
>
>So you say.

	Yes, indeed, I most certainly DO say.  I can think of no other reason
	which would explain your dismissal of my ethics in this matter as
	simply "wrong."  You have judged my ethics, and those who might agree
	with my ethics, to be worthy only of contempt.  To be fair, however,
	there are others in this forum who agree with you, although it never
	ceases to amaze me that it is [collective] you who want us to change,
	while we do not ask you to change, but merely to leave us alone.

>From article <1992Sep29.174553.8118@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> You just can't accept the fact that you're no better than an amoeba just
>ry> because you can think.
>
>Are you better than a cow?

	At what?

	Sorry, I couldn't resist.  Seriously, though, what does your statement
	mean?  I'm FAR better at being human than the cow, but the cow has
	me beat all hollow when it comes to being a cow.  Cow and human
	(and amoeba) are simply passengers on planet Earth (to use a trite,
	hackneyed, and quasi-poetic turn of phrase).

>> ...
>ry> Am I not simply another creature with an atavistic instinct
>ry> to survive?  ...
>
>rl> Not really.  You don't need to eat cows to survive.
>
>ry> What kind of an answer is that?  It's a complete non-sequitur!  I
>ry> ask whether I'm just another creature and you respond with, "You
>ry> don't need cows to survive?!?"
>
>Does the term "reductionism" mean anything to you?

	Yes.  It means "oversimplification."  But I suspect you're applying
	it as, "the attempt to explain all biological processes by the same
	explanations that chemists and physicists use to interpret inanimate
	matter." [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary]

	Since I have not made a comparison with inanimate matter, I fail to
	see how it might apply, however.  You might keep in mind that I
	specifically asked in the very beginning that discussion be limited
	to that which is "alive."

	Your comment remains a non-sequitur.  In fact, given the lack of
	applicability of this LATEST comment, it would seem that you've
	followed one non-sequitur with another.

[...]

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Wrong, Rich.  I judge actions on the basis of the impact that they
>rl> may have on sentient/sapient beings... not on the basis of similarity
>rl> of structure.
>
>From article <1992Sep29.152514.3890@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> And why do you limit yourself to the "impact they may have on
>ry> sentient/sapient beings?"  __Because__you__only__recognize__sen-
>ry> tience__and__sapience__as__occurring__in__animals__with__similar__
>ry> physical__structure__.  You've SAID this, don't try to change
>ry> this horse in mid-stream.
>
>ry> In <Bszov2.E58@wpg.com>, you said:
>ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>ry> ...it won't make much sense for you to turn around and pretend that rats
>ry> cannot suffer and that the similarity between humans and rats is a "false
>ry> god".
>ry> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Right.  I was disputing your claim that structural similarities are my
>"false god".   The fact of the matter is that an entity must be 
>sentient or sapient in order to perceive or evaluate an action as 
>good or bad.  It's irrelevant whether the entity is structurally
>similar to you and I.

	Oh?  Let's supply a bit MORE of your statement:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <Bszov2.E58@wpg.com>:

...given the similarity between rat brains and human brains, it won't make
much sense for you to turn around and pretend that rats cannot suffer and that 
the similarity between humans and rats is a "false god".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Looks to ME like you're arguing that similarity of structure is
	NOT a "false god."

	If you were arguing that it IS, you'd have been agreeing with me.

>rl> You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that you value one 
>rl> class of chemicals (ie "life") more highly than other chemicals
>rl> (ie, non-living entities), simply because of similarities between 
>rl> those chemicals and the chemicals found in humans.   
>
>ry> So what?  I have chosen a line of demarcation with which everyone
>ry> can agree (at least until we get to prions and retroviruses), and
>ry> which can be measured and analyzed.  You insist on using some
>ry> metaphysical criteria ["meaning"] which you can't even define,
>ry> but which requires the presence of the equally metaphysical
>ry> "sentience" and "sapience."
>
>I don't agree with your line of demarcation.  [...]

	So be it.  It's your choice.  I don't agree with yours, either,
	but I don't try to ram mine down your collective AR throat.

	[Use of hyperbole noted; there's no need to comment on the language.]

>rl> If it just so happened that all sentient/sapient beings had three 
>rl> eyes, I'd still base my judgments on sentience/sapience, and not 
>rl> on the presence or absence of three eyes.  In such a case, I'm 
>rl> sure you'd try to confuse the issue by claiming that I worship 
>rl> eyes that come in sets of three.  
>
>ry> Unlike you, I don't claim that you "worship" anything; nor do I
>ry> much care.  What I claim is that sentience and sapience are arbitrary
>ry> criteria upon which to base a system of ethics and morals.
>
>I'll believe you when you can explain how actions could be judged 
>as good or bad by an entity that lacks sentience and sapience.  

	How about explaining to me how the same process could occur in our
	world by an entity that's not alive?

	And speaking of questions, how about these:

1. Define "meaning" as you've used it in this discussion.

2. Who, or what, gave you the authority to assign status to non-human
    species?

3. By what absolute, significant-to-all-species criteria do you attach
    ethical importance to the death of some species and not others?

4. Why, if your criteria are not absolute, am I 'wrong' to develop my
    ethics [in this area] using some other criteria?


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