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: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:18:26 GMT

In <1992Oct12.232149.16199@ncar.ucar.edu>, Chuck D'Ambra writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct12.205442.7948@pixel.kodak.com>, young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>> 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:
>> 
>> 	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."
>
>We may have a semantic problem here.  Consider the following excerpt from
>Webster's Third International Dictionary for the entry "arbitrary":
>
>  "based on random or convenient selection or choice rather than on reason
>   or nature"
>
>An arbitrary criterion is one that is random, capricious or non-rational.
>None of the other definitions of arbitrary imply that it's the opposite of
>absolute (by all means let us know if you find such a definition).  The
>term "relative" would seem more appropriate.

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

>Furthermore, the concept of a "significant-to-all-species criterion for the
>principles of 'right' and 'wrong'" is meaningless (sorry 8-) ) when we know
>of no other species that considers such principles.  There may or may not
>be absolute ethical standards, but we are not going to find the truth of the
>matter by examining the (absence of) opinions of other species any more than
>we could use them to establish the validity of Einstein's relativity theories.

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

[...]

>Where we might agree is that I would contend that ethical standards must
>be based on some underlying values.  Given such values one can develop
>ethical standards by a rational (non-arbitrary) process.

	But if only humans, out of all other species, find these standards
	significant, then I must maintain that they are, in fact, "arbitrary"
	in the non-anthropocentric view.

[...]

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

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

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

	Non-arbitrary to whom?  Humans?  Shall we define which creatures
	are sentient and sapient, and thus meet your criteria?  How shall
	we do this?

	Clearly we need a list of characteristics by which we can recognize
	whether sentience and sapience are present.  Will you now provide
	us with such a list so that we may begin this classification?  How
	do you know that a cow has it, and an amoeba doesn't, for instance?
	We wait to be educated......failing that, it would seem that the
	application of the sentience/sapience standard is "random or
	capricious" even from the anthropocentric viewpoint.

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

	You're so convinced that they're "not the same thing?"  Clearly,
	the physio-chemical reactions of a cow are significantly more
	complex than those of an amoeba, so they are not congruent in
	the details, but is not the purpose identical?  Did not these 
	physio-chemical reactions evolve to accomplish precisely the same 
	function for each organism?  I'm afraid that the difference you see 
	so clearly is a bit muddy for me; I would say that "care", in the 
	dictionary sense, is simply part of the implementation of "react" 
	that comes along with complexity of structure.

>>>>>Is it your position then, Rich, that capacities for suffering and 
>>>>>conscious self-interest are arbitrary criteria for ethical considerations?
>
>Is the short answer yes?

	Not without some qualifications....such as, "from what viewpoint?"
	See the ">>>>" comments below.  I'm not trying to be evasive here,
	but I've been arguing with Russell so long that I want to be careful
	about being trapped into a position or generality I don't actually 
	support.

>>>> 	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.

[...]

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

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

[...]

>Any pronouncement of right or wrong (some prefer "better or worse") must
>be based on moral or ethical standards.  If I understand you correctly,
>you are saying that there are no absolute ethical standards and therefore
>no right or wrong beyond what each individual believes.

	I'd agree with that, with the observation that like-thinking groups
	of individuals may enforce a particular set of ethical standards
	sufficiently well to make them APPEAR to be absolute, but they
	remain opinions, nevertheless.  This is the case with Jeffrey Dahmer,
	who chose to reject the majority opinion and who was subsequently
	ostracized from that majority.

	The morals and ethics of human society are simply enforced opinion.


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