From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:49:58 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> The EXISTENCE of sentience/sapience is fact;  the USE OF THESE 
ry> CHARACTERISTICS AS A YARDSTICK FOR ASSIGNMENT OF "WORTH" OR 
ry> "STATUS" is arbitrary, since, from the standpoint of the natural 
ry> world, neither of these characteristics is any more important 
ry> than a host of other characteristics.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You've already admitted your belief that the "natural world" is 
rl> mindless.  And I believe that you probably agree with me that 
rl> ball-bearings are also mindless.  As such, it doesn't make sense 
rl> for you to declare than any idea is arbitrary, simply because 
rl> it's not endorsed by natural worlds, ball-bearings, and other 
rl> mindless entities.

In article <1992Sep1.225542.17463@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Oops.  Lost you here.  This isn't what I've said.
ry>
ry> I said that use of sentience/sapience as yardsticks to assign
ry> "worth" or "status" to non-human species is arbitrary.

You claimed that the consideration of sentience/sapience is 
arbitrary since such characteristics are not "important" to the 
natural world.  However you yourself have already admitted that 
the "natural world" is a mindless, thoughtless entity.  As such, 
your "appeal" to this non-existent "higher" authority just 
doesn't make sense.  

Suppose someone were to say that the concept of sanitation is an 
"arbitrary" value since the cosmos has no thoughts about 
sanitation one way or the other.  In such a case, you'd surely 
agree that the views of the "cosmos" are totally irrelevant to 
the discussion, if not downright silly.  Yet for some strange 
reason, you continue to engage in this cosmos-finger-pointing 
exercise when you're hoping to pick up a little "cosmic" 
support for your own personal views.  

rl>   For someone to declare that an idea is "arbitrary"
rl> simply because ball-bearings, bricks, cosmoses, etc, are unable
rl> to grasp the idea is, in effect, a perverse, twisted appeal to 
rl> a non-existent authority.  

ry> No, it's a non-anthropocentric view of the world.  The natural 
ry> world, or "cosmos" as I have called it, doesn't revolve around 
ry> the thoughts, actions, and judgements of Man.  We are just 
ry> another animal: no more, no less.  

So you say, but you're not qualified to speak for the "cosmos".  
Yes, yes, we can hear the deep, resonant voice of the Great Oz 
booming in the distance: "You are just an animal: no more, no 
less." But when the dog Toto pulls back the curtain, what do we 
discover?  We discover Rich Young using his keyboard microphone to 
cast his own personal views into the mouth of a non-existent 
entity.  

My advice is this:  Lay aside this pretense about what the "cosmos"
thinks or doesn't think, and learn to stand on your own two legs.

> ...
rl> Sentience and sapience are not arbitrary notions when it comes to 
rl> evaluating the goodness or badness of an action.

ry> BUT THEY ARE MEANINGFUL ONLY TO HUMANS!!!!  Not to deer, or 
ry> frogs, or oak trees.  They are, therefore, arbitrary criteria, in 
ry> the context of deciding whether one organism is more "worthy" 
ry> than another.  

The qualities of sentience and sapience are important to quite
a few animals, apart from humans.  The abilities to hear and smell,
for instance, are surely important to a deer; and the ability to
analyze the strength and speed of a deer would surely be
important to a wolf.   

ry> As I've said before, they may be VALID, but they are still
ry> ARBITRARY.  And they are not necessarily any MORE valid than a 
ry> wide variety of other criteria.

So you say.  I'll believe you when you can explain how existence 
can have meaning to an entity that can neither feel nor think.

rl>   As everyone 
rl> who's followed this discussion ought to realize, the notion of 
rl> goodness or badness or any other kind of "worth" would be 
rl> meaningless if sentience and sapience were non-existent qualities.  

ry> This is a non-sequitur...and wrong, too.  A notion of "goodness"
ry> or "badness" would have as much meaning if based on hair color
ry> or religion. 

Wrong Rich.

How can a non-sentient individual perceive hair color?
How can a non-sapient individual have any thoughts about 
religion?

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