From: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Chuck D'Ambra)
Subject: Re: Are sentience and sapience arbitrary ethical criteria?
Reply-To: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Organization: The Big Cracker
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:22:25 GMT

ry:	From an anthropocentric point of view, perhaps; no one will
ry:	claim that sentience and sapience are not rational to humans.  If,
ry:	however, one steps back and views the living world as a whole, the
ry:	presence or absence of sentience and sapience is no more important
ry:	than the ability of a green plant to synthesize glucose.  From
ry:	this view, human use of sentience and sapience to decide whether
ry:	killing this species is more ethically relevant than the killing of
ry:	that species most certainly IS random, hence my use of the word 
ry:	"arbitrary."

The identification or selection of ethical standards by humans is not
random, simply because non-humans are incapable of doing so.  If ethics
are exclusively the province of humans, why is an anthropocentric view
inappropriate?  We are not attempting to determine if the earth is the
center of the universe, but rather what are the boundaries of appropriate
human conduct.

ry:	Are there or are there not absolute ethical standards?  This goes
ry:	to the heart of the question: if there are not, then the standards
ry:	AR advocates attempt to foist upon us are based on personal opinion
ry:	and carry no more weight than the opinion of any other group.  It
ry:	is precisely my point that the concept of a significant-to-all-
ry:	species criterion is not considered by other species: no principle
ry:	can truly be considered "universal" or "absolute" unless it is
ry:	recognized by ALL species.  [Note that "recognize" is used loosely
ry:	here...much as "care" is, below.]

Indeed, the existence of absolute ethical standards is a fundamental
question, one which I hope this group will explore more completely.  But
why would it matter whether non-humans recognize principles if they are
incapable of doing so?

Let me give an example.  Many persons, including some contributors to this
group, believe in absolute ethical standards set forth by a supernatural
being.  Would we learn anything about the validity of this idea by
considering the opinions (or absence thereof) of amoebas?

cd: My point was that, unlike the other distinctions, the presence or absence of
cd: sentience and sapience determine whether or not an organism is capable of
cd: suffering and caring what happens to itself.  Are you really disagreeing
cd: with that point?

ry:	Yes, I really am disagreeing; the amoeba example below should be
ry:	an adequate illustration.

Then there are two issues here.  Are sentience and sapience required for
an organism to be capable of suffering and for caring what happens to itself?
Do these capabilities have ethical significance?

cd: It would seem that the issue is whether or not these
cd: abilities have a non-arbitrary ethical significance.

ry:	Non-arbitrary to whom?  Humans?

Non-arbitrary to beings capable of reason, of understanding standards of
ethical conduct, and of complying with such standards.  That may be
exclusively humans now, though we may learn of others for whom it would
apply.

ry:	Clearly we need a list of characteristics by which we can recognize
ry:	whether sentience and sapience are present.  Will you now provide
ry:	us with such a list so that we may begin this classification?  How
ry:	do you know that a cow has it, and an amoeba doesn't, for instance?

The scientific method provides a reasonable means of establishing which
organisms possess these characteristics.  I've yet to see any practitioners
of this method support your assertion that amoebas may be among them.
If this assertion were valid, perhaps we would have a first criterion that
applies to all species:  organisms of all species are self-interested
(where "interest" carries the same connotations as the dictionary definition
of caring).

cd: The amoeba has evolved with a moderately complex set of physio-chemical
cd: reactions that allow it to react in the manner it does.  While the cognitive
cd: abilities of other organisms also have physio-chemical underpinnings, they're
cd: hardly the same thing.  React != care.

ry:	You're so convinced that they're "not the same thing?"  Clearly,
ry:	the physio-chemical reactions of a cow are significantly more
ry:	complex than those of an amoeba, so they are not congruent in
ry:	the details, but is not the purpose identical?  Did not these 
ry:	physio-chemical reactions evolve to accomplish precisely the same 
ry:	function for each organism? 

A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy is an amoeba?

No, the purposes are not identical.  The cognitive abilities of a cow
serve additional purposes, e.g. to learn from experience, to nurture
its offspring and to be self-aware.  The distinctions may not always be
obvious, but I don't think there as blurred as you maintain.

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

cd: [...]  Now if we
cd: accept your statement, Jeffrey Dahmer's food choices are as valid as yours
cd: or mine.

ry:	To him they were.  Human society, or more accurately OUR human
ry:	society, says otherwise, and there is some basis for this: it is
ry:	counterproductive, from a species survival standpoint, for species
ry:	to evolve consuming their own.  Cannibalism is not common in the
ry:	living world, but neither is it unknown.

Is survival of one's species an absolute ethic?

Even if human society's ethical standards concerning cannabilism stem from
nothing more than the predominant opinion, that is a sufficient basis to
consider them non-arbitrary.  If we look closely we may find that they are
part of human nature.

--------------------
Chuck D'Ambra
chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals