From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:42:44 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> On the other hand, let's suppose that the "Cosmos" is a mindless 
rl> entity with no thoughts and feelings whatsoever.  In such a case, 
rl> neither "life" nor "sentience" nor any other attribute of 
rl> existence would make a difference to the Mindless-Cosmos-Itself, 
rl> and hence, your appeal to cosmic authority would make as much 
rl> sense as appeals to the thoughts and sensibilities of bricks, 
rl> stainless-steel ball bearings, glass bottles, and so on. 

In article <1992Aug28.174552.4393@pixel.kodak.com>, young@serum.kodak.com writes:
ry> You're so CLOSE, Russell, how can you have gone right by it?  Let's
ry> read the first four lines in your paragraph again:
ry> 
=======================================================================
rl> On the other hand, let's suppose that the "Cosmos" is a mindless 
rl> entity with no thoughts and feelings whatsoever.  In such a case, 
rl> neither "life" nor "sentience" nor any other attribute of 
rl> existence would make a difference to the Mindless-Cosmos-Itself, ...
=======================================================================
ry> 
ry> If you'd stopped there, the discussion would be nearly finished,
ry> because the next step is to say that, since nothing "matters" to the
ry> cosmos, morals and ethics must originate from within ourselves,
ry> and are therefore personal and individual creations which do not
ry> necessarily apply beyond the "self" unless agreed to by a society
ry> of like-minded members of our own species.  And even at that, they
ry> imbue us with no absolute "right" to assign "status" to other
ry> species and then insist that these assignments are universal, based
ry> upon some cosmically irrelevant attribute.

You're still assigning "status", Rich.    Consider the following two
statements:

   -- a "cosmos" is a mindless entity
   -- a ball-bearing is a mindless entity

Unless you're assigning some sort of special "status" to the 
cosmos, there isn't much of a difference between these two 
statements.  Would you mind explaining why it would make any 
difference in our ethical decision-making (vis-a-vis animal 
cruelty) whether a ball-bearing has a mind or not?  If you agree 
with me that the mindlessness of ball-bearings and cosmoses are 
irrelevant, then please cease and desist from appealing to
mindless, hierarchical, non-existent authorities.  

One more request.   If it's wrong for others to allegedly
assign "status" to individuals belonging to a taxonomic
genus, family, or class, why is it right for you to assign
"status" to the "like-minded" members of a particular taxonomic 
species?

rl> Now it might be true that a mindless cosmos or a brick or a glass 
rl> bottle couldn't care less whether murdering innocent beings is 
rl> good or bad, but the lack of concern among such entities doesn't 
rl> mean that ethical questions about murder are devoid of merit.  

ry> Within the limits of human society, such questions may have merit,
ry> but they have little to do with whether humans have any absolute
ry> "authority" to say that the killing of one living thing is murder, but
ry> that the killing of another living thing is not.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, you're the person who keeps introducing
the concept of absolutes into the discussion.  If it's your opinion
that absolutes are meaningless, why do you continue invoking them
in your arguments? 

> ...
ry> ... Hey, look, if it tilts your kilt to feel that
ry> a giraff is worthy of some additional consideration beyond that
ry> you'd give a garden slug, so be it, but it is, and will remain,
ry> a purely arbitrary decision based on your personal sensibilities.
ry> Of course others may share those sensibilities, but that fact doesn't
ry> make the decision any less arbitrary.
ry>
ry> Understand, however, that we, as humans, have absolutely NO more
ry> "authority" to make that decision than a naked mole rat.  The fact
ry> that we have the CAPABILITY is not the same thing.

rl> I'm not sure what you mean by "authority", Rich?

ry> OK, Let me put it this way: who, or what, told you that you could
ry> arbitrarily decide that a deer was more "worthy" or of higher "status"
ry> than a garden slug?  Or that a panda is somehow worthy of more
ry> "status" than the bamboo it eats?

Are you still pretending that the sentience and sapience of pandas
is an arbitrary consideration in our discussion of ethical values?  
If so, why would it have mattered whether or not the Cosmos is a 
mindless entity? 

Either qualities of mind (ie sentience and sapience) truly make
a difference as I contend, or, it doesn't matter that the Cosmos 
is a mindless entity.  

ry> ...
ry> I defy you to produce one scrap of evidence which shows that I
ry> have "appealed to a higher authority."  In point of fact, I have
ry> consistently asked to which "higher authority" YOU appeal for
ry> authority to judge the worth of other species based on sentience/
ry> sapience.  It may be revealing that no answer to this question
ry> has been forthcoming.

I contend that we can figure out basic things for ourselves, without
relying on the testimony of "higher authorities". 

Consider these two statements:

   -- pandas are sentient and sapient
   -- cosmoses are neither sentient nor sapient

Why would the consideration of sentience and sapience be 
arbitrary in the first statement, but not arbitrary in the second 
statement?  

ry> There IS no "higher authority", Russell, and any attempts to create
ry> one are fictitious manifestations of human imagination...as are
ry> assignments of "worth" and "status" to other species.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there is a "higher
authority".  For convenience, let's use the word "god" to label
this individual.  In our future deliberations, would it make any
difference whether this "god" has thoughts and feelings, ie sapience
and sentience?   Would you say that a mindless "god" is more or less
the same as a mindful "god"?

ry> As far as my honesty in discussion, I think you'll find in a poll
ry> that the huge majority of readers find my honesty of discussion in
ry> this thread flawless, and that I have no NEED for an avenue of
ry> escape.  You, on the other hand have come dangerously close to
ry> an ad hominem attack in your statement above; if you wish to
ry> continue debate, I suggest that you suppress this inclination in
ry> future postings in this thread.  Your intellectual floundering does
ry> not make me dishonest or desperate to find an "avenue of escape."

You have a very high opinion of yourself, Rich.   This is a surprising
characteristic for a man who loathes the assignment of "status".

Thanks in advance for explaining the inconsistency between your
statements about the mindlessness of the "cosmos" and your pretense 
that sentience and sapience are arbitrary values.

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