From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Are sentience and sapience arbitrary ethical criteria?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 20:54:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.154221.5619@ncar.ucar.edu> chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.001403.2674@pixel.kodak.com>, young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>> In article <1992Oct9.221259.22469@ncar.ucar.edu> chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu writes:
>
>Rich, while my synopsis may be "close enough at first glance to suffice for
>any discussion" we might have, perhaps you should state your position in
>your own terms.

	Fair enough.  Sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria for
	assigning status (or "ethical relevance") to non-human species.
	I say this because ethics are a creation of the human mind and
	have no significance outside the bounds of human society.  Indeed,
	particular ethics may not have universal acceptance WITHIN human
	society.  In the case of our treatment of non-human species, the
	arbitrary nature of using sentience and sapience to assign status to
	non-human species stems from the fact that there is no absolute,
	significant-to-all-species criterion for the principles of "right"
	and "wrong."

	Since assignment of ethical relevance is a uniquely human activity,
	and since there is no absloute standard for "right" and "wrong,"
	the use of ANY criteria to perform such classification and make
	such judgements must be arbitrary machinations of the human mind.

	NOTE: This does NOT mean that such criteria are not VALID for
		use within human society; only that the choice of these
		criteria is ARBITRARY, since other criteria could be used
		just as well...and often are.  Jains apparently espouse
		the use of an "alive/not alive" test; sentience and
		sapience are not the determining factors to them.

	The implication of this is that it is intolerant to insist that
	these arbitrary criteria be universally adopted within human
	society.  Or, to put it more succinctly, your opinion is no better
	than mine in this area.

[...]

>> 	First, the list:
>> 
>> 	   1. Exothermic vs. endothermic
>> 	   2. Placental vs. non-placental
>> 	   3. Live-bearing vs. egg-laying
>> 	   4. Sexually reproductive vs. asexually reproductive
>> 	   5. Animal vs. plant
>> 	   6. Single-celled vs. multi-celled
>> 	   7. Eukaryotic vs. prokaryotic
>> 	   8. Aerobic vs. anaerobic
>> 	   9. Terrestrial vs. aquatic
>> 	  10. Carnivorous vs. herbivorous
>
>I think we would at least agree that the difference (whether or not relevant)
>between sentience/sapience and the other distinctions does exist.

	I'm not so sure we WOULD agree.  Sentience and sapience is simply
	another set of biological properties with which we might classify
	non-human life.  These characteristics have no more inherent
	significance than the ability of an animal to regulate its internal
	temperature, for example.  Sentience and sapience are simply
	characteristics which apply to one group of living things and not
	another.

[...]

>The amoeba has some ability to sense its environment and react to it.  There
>is no evidence of cognitive ability (sapience), so how could it "care"?

	Depends on what you mean by "care," doesn't it?  If you're talking
	about the classical dictionary definition, it clearly can't, but
	it we allow some latitude, the fact that it acts to save its life
	becomes the amoebic equivalent of "caring," does it not?  If you
	have some other, non-anthropocentric, term for this, feel free to
	suggest it and we'll dispense with the word "care."  I'm not
	interested in debating whether the dictionary definition applies,
	but rather the implications of a living thing taking action to
	avoid loss of its life.

[...]

>> >Is it your position then, Rich, that capacities for suffering and conscious
>> >self-interest are arbitrary criteria for ethical considerations?
>> 
>> 	From the standpoint of any non-human species you would care to
>> 	name, sentience and sapience are arbitrary criteria for humans to
>> 	use when assigning ethical value to the death of one non-human
>> 	species as opposed to another.
>
>Considering that, as far as we know, ethics are exclusively a human concern,
>why would the opinions or lack thereof of non-humans be relevant to this
>discussion?

	If ethics are strictly a human concern, and if they stem from
	opinions rather than extra-species absolutes, then the opinions
	of one human regarding food choices are as valid as the opinions of
	another and AR people have no business making ethical pronouncements
	regarding the morality of other people based on their own opinions,
	as in, "it's WRONG to eat meat."

	It may well not be a good idea, but who are [collective] you to
	pronounce me morally bereft if I do it?  Ignorant, perhaps, but
	WRONG?


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