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: Fri, 9 Oct 92 23:39:40 GMT

In <BvvEuo.Hr7@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>From article <1992Oct9.154731.16670@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> Now, this is the third time that I've re-posted this.  One would 
>ry> normally assume that three repetitions would be sufficient to make 
>ry> it crystal clear that nothing has been "abandoned" here and that
>ry> there is no "appeal to non-existent authority."  If we say that the 
>ry> sapience and sentience you use as criteria to assign moral and ethical 
>ry> relevance, or "status", to non-human species is utterly without 
>ry> significance to those non-human species, we have said precisely the 
>ry> same thing without using the term upon which you've hung this 
>ry> desperate excursion into semantics rather than substance... 
>
>What makes you think that sentience has no significance to non-human
>species?   [mind-reading perhaps]

	Hm-m-m-m.  What do you suppose happened to the sapience AND sentience
	test Russell has been insisting is necessary until now?  

	Oh well, to the question: human use of sentience and sapience as
	criteria for assigning moral and ethical worth, or "status" to
	non-human species is a process which adds nothing to the collective
	lives of those non-human species.  If you disagree, what makes you 
	think otherwise?

>Anesthesia is a tool whose major purpose is to diminish sentience 
>so that painful and/or emotionally disturbing medical procedures 
>can be implemented without causing unnecessary suffering for the 
>recipient.  Do you believe that animals should receive anesthesia
>prior to surgery?  

	Generally, yes.  I've never claimed that sentience and sapience
	weren't real, or that reptiles, birds, and mammals don't feel pain.
	[We've been over this very point before, please open your files and
	refer to <1992Sep18.220038.12945@pixel.kodak.com>.]  The anesthesia
	twist is new, but the basic thought is yet another repetition of
	a question already asked and answered.

	I have claimed that sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria 
	for assigning "status" to non-human species, a position thus far
	not refuted by the constant repetition of your first few arguments.

	Remember these, Russell?  Good.  Now, how about addressing them?

	   o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
		that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
		concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
		standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
		your values.

		So far, your arguments are rather like those against
		pornography: "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I
		know it when I see it."

	   o  Second, you need to tell us which external entity gave you
		the right to make life and death judgements of other species
		based on your ill-defined "meaning" test.

	   o  Third, you need to tell us the source of your absolute deter-
		mination that it is "wrong" to kill sentient/sapient animals
		for food.

	   o  Fourth, if the determination of "right" versus "wrong" in this
		area of discussion originates from within the confines of
		your own mind, you need to explain to us why we should
		blindly accept your judgement as absolute, or be relegated
		to that slag heap of humanity you use for those who do not
		agree with you.


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