From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:09:24 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Of course, they're alive, but do such lifeforms experience life 
>rl> mentally in any way?  Can they watch the sun come up as a deer 
>rl> might do?  Do they care for their progeny as a deer might do?  Do 
>rl> they feel sorrow or pain, as deer might do?  
>
>In article <qh#y8mb@rpi.edu>, John S. Van Etten writes:
>jve> Should they be deprived of their lives simply because they do not have
>jve> higher neurological funtions?  
>
>How can a mindless organism be deprived in any way?  If a boulder 
>lacks both sentience and sapience, would it care if we smash it 
>into gravel?  

Boulders are not alive, Russell.  But you've admitted that plants are,
which is good, because that's a first step -- you had me scared with
all this talk that you think they are just chemical reactions.
Sentience and sapience are two qualities to which man can relate
readily, but that does not mean that they are the only ones.  Nor do I
particularly think it's necessary for a person to define any like
criterion in order to justify not killing a plant.  Do you think
rainforests should be slashed down for lumber?  I assume not.  Why
don't you think so?  Is it merely concern for the animals that live
there?  Or is it because your parents or teachers told you that it was
a bad thing to slash down trees for no good reason?  I'm curious as to
what your justification might be.  Friends of mine would say that it
is because these trees should be allowed to live simply because they
are alive.  I'm not convinced that your sentience criterion is any
better than theirs (you might even be forced to say worse, if we
forget that all the Icky Things like snakes and spiders live in the
rain forest ;-).  What about my personal favorites, the swamps?
Should they be bulldozed because their plantlife doesn't matter, if no
animals live there (they are contaminated with something that won't
harm plants, if you'll forgive me for not thinking up a better example
off the top of my head)?


>rl> If not, would you say that their lives are as dark and 
>rl> meaningless as a set of mindless chemical reactions?
>
>jve> No.  Patently NO.  Did you ever notice that an uprooted plant will
>jve> send out new roots in an effort to find nourishment and water?  Why
>jve> would it do so if it didn't want to stay alive?  
>
>You might just as easily ask why a bacterium responds to heat unless,
>of course, it "wants" to stay alive?   The answer is that most reactions
>in nature don't stem from conscious intentions.  Would you have us
>believe that it rains because clouds "want" to rid themselves of 
>excess water?  Would you argue that tidal waves occur because the sea
>"wants" to escape from seismic activity?   Probably not, yet when it
>suits your convenience, you pretend that plants "want" to stay alive.

What on earth makes you think that you can declare that plants must
have "conscious intentions" in order to be spared your wrath?  As far
as this clouds business goes, if I take two identical clouds (carrying
the same amount of moisture) in two different environments, either
they will both rain (because they are supersaturated), or they will
both not rain.  Now if I take two identical plants and put them in two
different environments, one with soil and one without.  What happens?
The one with soil will grow above the ground (stalks, etc., and may
even have flowers as part of it's reproductive process) and the other
without soil will send out roots like mad to try and find nutrients.
Why do these identical plants react differently to different
environments?  Because they are *alive*.  And I'm not yet convinced
that Russell Lawrence should be able to pull them out and throw them
in the dumpster just because they are "mindless as rocks" to him.


>jve> You seem to be all too quick to say that something must have a 
>jve> brain and be able to think in order to want to remain alive.  
>
>How can an entity have intentions (ie, "wants") if it doesn't have 
>any mental faculties?   Please explain. 

I'm afraid that I don't know.  But you're alone in your arrogance to
assume that they don't.  I also see your beloved "empirical proof"
that they do indeed want to remain alive, any time they are uprooted
from their soil.


>jve> I'd say there's a lot a evidence against your assertion.  Perhaps 
>jve> you ought to think more critically about it.  
>
>Why don't you post some of the evidence, John?  You've stated 
>that whales are "merely food", yet you're now pretending that 
>plants are persons (in the philosophical sense) with intentions.  

I don't believe that I think plants are persons.  But they are alive.
Even Russell Lawrence admitted that above. ;-)


>Do you think your position would be believable among readers who 
>aren't searching for a flimsy rationale to justify the killing of 
>animals that clearly have both thoughts and emotions?  

You seem to be confused once again, old friend.  Perhaps it's my
fault.  It is not really my position that plants should not be killed
for food or lumber or paper or whatever.  These opinions are those of
my friends who feel that only fruits and milk and other things that
are "given up willingly" should be consumed.  No living thing (plant
or animal or human) should be killed.  "Flimsy rationale."  Oh my, my,
my.  I'm not at all convinced that the rationale of these people isn't
every bit as good as Peter Singer's.  Also, at least their criterion
(life itself) is a little better defined than "sentience according to
Peter Singer and Russell Lawrence."  Whatever that is.


>rl> Or, would you have us pretend that plants are endowed with some 
>rl> "mystical" property like "souls" that permits them to think and 
>rl> feel the way mammals and birds might think and feel.  
>
>jve> Save the demeaning drivel for the theists.
>
>I presume you're admitting that plants don't have "souls", and you also
>seem to be admitting that plants don't have higher level neurological
>functions.  Why, then, do you believe that plants are capable of
>having "intentions"?

I've never used the word "intentions."  But is you mean to use it in
the sense that they want to stay alive instead of just die when they
are uprooted (because you claim they are "mindless as rocks"), then
yes, they do.  I've told you why I believe so above.


>rl> In short, if their brainless bodies are as mindless as rocks, I don't
>rl> see how their life or death would make much difference to the organisms
>rl> themselves.  Without senses and cognitive capabilities, how/why would
>rl> a cabbage care whether it's eaten or not?
>
>jve> Russell Lawrence doesn't see it.  Oh my, my, my.  I've convinced.
>jve> This must indeed be The Way It Is.  To answer your question, I don't
>jve> know.  The key point, however, is that you and Peter Singer don't know
>jve> either.  The fact that plants will do things in an effort to survive
>jve> and remain alive should at least cast some doubt about the
>jve> absoluteness of your assertion.
>
>Not really.  As a person who respects empirical facts, I'm reluctant to 
>personify mechanical and chemical reactions.  

I don't believe personify is the correct term (but you knew that ;-).
They are alive, and as such I'm not as quick as you to label them as
mere chemical and mechanical reactions.  Do you feel that people and
that dog that lives with you that you don't own are just chemical and
mechanical reactions as well?  Actually, I'm not so sure that a case
can't be made for both.


>jve> I'm glad you at least did those of us with open minds the courtesty of
>jve> putting square brackets around your assertion, instead of merely
>jve> saying that it is The Truth, as you normally do.  See your first
>jve> sentence for an example.  Sentience is what *you* and your fellow AR
>jve> types *believe* to be the "ground-of-being for meaningful life."  I
>jve> disagree with you quite adamantly about it.  And you've never offered
>jve> any proof that this is so, other than by repeated assertion.
>
>You've stated previously that you don't consider human embryos 
>and fetuses to be "alive", yet they're surely as alive as cabbage 
>plants.  How do you explain your sudden concern about the "wants" 
>of cabbages, given your previous statements about embryos and 
>fetuses?  Do embryos "want" to stay alive, as much as cabbages
>"want" to stay alive?

As you know, when I used the term "not alive" to describe an embryo, I
was using it as "personhood" in the context of the conversation.  It
is not a seperate entity.  An individual plant is.
     I have no "sudden concern" about cabbages.  I'm an omnivore and
consume both plants and animals.  Since embryos are not individuals,
it doesn't really matter if they "want" to stay alive, IMHO.


>Incidently, I asked you once whether you'd object to turning off 
>the life-support systems of brain dead humans.  In your reply, you
>stated that you'd adamantly object, given the possibility that medical
>science might someday find a means of restoring dead brain cells to
>life.  
>
>Question #1:  If sentience and sapience don't provide the basis
>for meaningful life, why would it matter whether a man is brain-dead
>and comatose, or conversely, alert and wide-awake?  

Because life itself is just as valid a criterion as your conjured up
notion that sentience and sapience is somehow the Eternal Law in the
matter.  That has been the whole point of this conversation.  Why have
you missed it?  Do you read what I write? :-)


>Question #2: In cases where humans have revived from deep comas,
>do they come back with detailed accounts of their day-to-day activities
>while living in Comaland?  If not, why not?

I wouldn't know.  Is this relevant?


>jve> If all I've done is to "imply" it, then I'm sorry.  I will state it.
>jve> You AR folk have *no* proof that your arbitrary definitions and
>jve> philosophy is any better that anyone else's.  They are merely your
>jve> *beliefs* and as such are not unlike any other "religious" type of
>jve> following.
>
>So you say.  Yet, your assertions seem far more "religious" than my
>own, since I'm willing to analyze the goodness or badness of an activity
>on the basis of empirical evidence, whereas you continue to insist that
>the goodness or badness of rape, slavery, hunting, etc, is merely a 
>matter of belief.

I don't recall ever saying they weren't as religious as yours.  I too
gather my own evidence to decide what I believe to be right and wrong.
But I'm not naive enough to say that they are not what I believe.  


>jve> You mean to tell me that you admit there's a chance it's not <gasp>?
>jve> Hey, maybe we're making progress for you after all.
>
>Perhaps.  Are you willing to look at facts and reasons to resolve our
>disputes?  Or, are you going to insist that we accept all beliefs at
>face-value and never dig beneath the surface?

Facts and reasons are merely beliefs, if you want to look at it that
way.  We rarely ever know anything that we are not told, or at least
anything that is not based on something we have been told.  If I asked
you the color of snow, you would say "white."  A Frenchman would say
"blanc."  Which of you is right?  You've often brought up the argument
of how the earth is really round, not flat.  How do you know?  Have
you ever gone up in the Space Shuttle and observed it?  Have you ever
seen pictures of it on your TV?  Have you ever taken a Graphics class
or noticed the special effects in a movie like Terminator II?  I'll
ask again, how do you know these things which you call empirical
facts?  Have you ever seen the Great Houdini? (sp?)
     Do you believe in electrons, Russell? :-)


>Whether it's cruel or not-cruel to take an animal's life would 
>depend on the circumstances.  If the animal is suffering 
>painfully from a terminal disease, and unable to find any 
>pleasure in life, then it might not be cruel to end his life in a 
>pleasant manner.  On the other hand, it would, indeed, be cruel 
>to kill a family of whales with old fashioned harpoons without 
>regard for their terror and pain, in spite of the fact that the
>perpetrators might choose to believe that such animals are "mere food" 
>and nothing more.  

Seems we still disagree on this.  Somehow, I'm not surprized. ;-)


>jve> Back to the "meaning" stuff.  It seems you can't refute my arguments
>jve> without relying on that term.  Again (ad nauseum), why does it have to
>jve> find meaning in life in order not to be deprived of it? 
>
>How can a mindless entity experience deprivation?  Does a dead man
>experience hot or cold or pain or loss of income?  Can a dead man be
>deprived in any way?  If not, why not?

Because he's *dead*, Russell.  Let's avoid comparing apples and
oranges, shall we?  Plants are *alive*.


>jve> And if these bacteria and viruses do things like seeking out 
>jve> food, vs.  just sitting around dying because they are "mindless" 
>jve> enough not to seek out food to survive, then is there not some 
>jve> *reason* why they would do so?  
>
>There's an explanation for their doing so, just as there's an
>explanation why my burglar alarm makes a loud noise when someone opens
>a window.  Reactions, however, don't always stem from intentions.

But they do where something is *alive*.  Your car alarm, alas is not.


>jve> And is that reason not because of some "meaning" that they find 
>jve> in being alive, rather than being dead?  
>
>Again, does it rain because clouds "want" to rid themselves of water?

Of course not.  Apples and oranges.  Why don't you find something that
is *alive* for your examples?  Or is it that you can't?


>> ...
>rl> In practical terms, however, the evidence indicates that the 
>rl> likelihood of cabbage thoughts and cabbage emotions is rather 
>rl> farfetched.  [Please do not confuse low level cellular reactions 
>rl> with high level brain activities.]
>
>jve> Russell, I've never said they were smart.  I'm saying that they don't
>jve> have to be smart to have a right to life.  *You* are the one making
>jve> that claim (on behalf of your AR bretheren).
>
>How can rights have any meaning to entities that are mindless, and
>hence, incapable of experiencing their own existence in any way?

Forgive me here, Russell, but I'm not yet convinced that rights have
meaning to that happy little sentient dog that lives with you that you
don't own, either.  Animals are not capable of understanding such
concepts, so this strikes me as irrelevant.  "They don't have to be
smart to have a right to life," as I said above.


>You claim that "life" itself is a better criterion than sentience
>when it comes to evaluating rights, yet you yourself have stated that
>non-human animals don't have rights.

Wrong on both counts.  "Life" itself is just another criterion, and
I've never said that it was better than yours (I'm Mr. Tolerance,
remember?), only that it is easier to determine.  It is also not the
criterion which I personally use.  I also don't ever recall saying
that "animals have no rights."  I'm pretty sure that I've said that
they have rights such as the one to not be treated cruely for no good
reason (i.e., it's not cool to poke them in the eye with an icepick,
to borrow one of your vivid descriptors).  I have, however, said that
they do not have all the rights which you AR folk feel they should
have.


>  Moreover, you've stated that
>unborn fetuses don't have rights.  Is it your contention that non-human
>animals and unborn human fetuses are not alive to the same degree
>that cabbage plants are alive?  Please explain.

I've addressed this above.  Also, you've misquoted me here.


>jve> Why does a life have to have some "meaning," as either Russell 
>jve> Lawrence or Peter Singer choose to define such a term, in order 
>jve> to not be randomly taken for no apparent reason?  
>
>It might be ethically wrong in some circumstances to kill a 
>non-sentient lifeform, just as it might be ethically wrong to 
>destroy a painting or burn down a house, but the wrongness of
>such an action would stem from the effect that the action would
>have on other thinking/feeling beings... not from the impact
>that the action would have on the entity itself.  A painting,
>for example, doesn't care if it's encased in a gold frame or
>tossed on the junkheap.

So you're telling me that it's perfectly OK to slash forests if there
are no animals living there?  I hope I missed something here.  Also,
you didn't really answer my question.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals