From: young@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:32:31 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In <Bt78su.7w2@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>re: the relevance of sentience and sapience ]
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>I agree with you that arguments about the alleged cosmic 
>importance of individual beings as well as individual actions 
>are unfounded at this point.  So, please answer the 
>following question _without_ references to cosmic "status": 
>
>If a brain-dead human doesn't give two hoots if we shoot him/her/it,
>why would a brainless carrot mind if we pull him/her/it from the 
>ground?  

	Because its sensory capabilities are intact?  Mind you, I'm not
	claiming any particular cognitive capabilities for our proverbial
	carrot.  As I explained in my last posting, the brain-dead human
	is essentially irrelevant to the discussion, since it is an
	incomplete organism incapable of sustaining itself.  This question
	has been asked and answered twice, now.  Might we return to the
	original question of whether humans have the right to assign value
	or "status" to other organisms?

>ry> Here, the issue is being confused again, and the term "meaningful"
>ry> is thrust upon us once more.  What IS "meaningful"?
>
>Good question, Rich.

	Thank you.  I thought so.  Might there be an answer forthcoming?

	In point of fact, there are a number of questions I've asked which
	you've chosen to avoid.  Let us (once AGAIN) refresh our memories
	with the original point of discussion:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <altar.713493440@sfu.ca>:

>>Insects are not of the same status as birds, repitiles (sic), and mammals,
>>nor are the latter equivalent in all respects to human beings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	To which I say:

	Who are we to say that insects are not of the same status as birds,
	etc.?  They are surely not as complex, but this is no better a
	criterion for "an (sic) rational ethical position" than many other,
	equally reasonable, criteria...all of which are arbitrary human
	assignments which have little basis except in our own desperate
	attempts to classify and pigeonhole our environment into comfortably
	familiar categories.

	I also say:

	Why is my ethical standard of "life has worth" less valid than
	your standard (admittedly greatly simplified here, but no more than
	mine) of "only SAPIENT/SENTIENT life has worth"?

	and then:

	Why does "meaning" HAVE to exist in the universe?  And to what
	"meaning" do you refer?  What is this "meaning" to which you seem
	to be so inextricably bound?

>  Please explain why it might make a 
>difference in our ethical deliberations if our hypothetical 
>shooting victim were mindless and brain-dead, as opposed to mindful 
>and not-brain-dead.  

	Already asked and answered...this is the third time.  See below.

>ry> As for the imagined contradiction you wish to clarify, the loss of
>ry> the "sensory processing center" precludes the unaided existence of the
>ry> organism, as would failure of liver, kidneys, or heart.  The "brain-dead"
>ry> individual is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion, since the
>ry> existence of that individual as a self-sufficient example of the species
>ry> has ended.  The fact that the failed organ is also the center of sapience
>ry> does not matter.
>
>Is this true?
>
>It seems to me that a man's "being" is defined by his mind...  
>not by various parts of his body.  If my brain were disconnected 
>from my body and successfully reconnected to a complex machine, I'd 
>still be "me" albeit with metal/plastic arms and legs.  
>
>On the other hand, if my brain/mind were killed and replaced by a 
>computer system that would subsequently control the body that 
>presently belongs to "me", it seems rather obvious that "I" would 
>no longer exist.  
>
>Let's consider the case of a sentient man whose brain is 
>functioning quite well, but whose heart is artificial and whose 
>kidneys are nonfunctional.  Would such a man care if you shoot him 
>in the foot?

	This entire exchange is not relevant to the point, and this question
	has already been asked and answered...now for the fourth time.

	May I kindly point out that we are NOT talking about special cases
	of humankind or what we, as a species, can do for each other?  We are
	talking about applying systems of ethics to non-human organisms
	based on arbitrary criteria.  I have asked before, and I ask again:
	what absolute authority gives humans the "right" to assign "worth"
	or "status" to non-human organisms?

	Now, there are five (well, four really, since two are closely related)
	questions that I have asked and which have yet to be answered.  All
	are culled from past postings.  Might we expect that they be addressed
	in your next posting, since none have been addressed to date?

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