From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:10:32 GMT

In <Bw534K.Ixn@wpg.com> and <Bw54z8.J3v@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> I'm not "assigning status" to Rich Young when I recognize that he 
>rl> has thoughts and feelings that deserve my respect.  To the 
>rl> contrary, I'm merely recognizing capabilities that exist within 
>rl> Rich Young.
>
>From article <1992Oct14.210313.14943@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> I thought you weren't going to do this any more, Russell?  We've
>ry> been over this before, as the following will attest.  Remember
>ry> this from <1992Oct8.224955.11938@pixel.kodak.com>?
>>
>> [...explanation from referenced posting deleted by Russell...]
>
>Perhaps we wouldn't need to run through it, again and again, if you
>would discontinue the inaccurate assertion that your opponents are
>"assigning value".   This phrase, as I've pointed out repeatedly,
>applies more to your position than to my own.

	Or perhaps you should address the answers you don't like at the time
	they appear instead of waiting until you have nothing else to say
	and dredging them up just to have something to post.

	It looks to me like you've got your analysis exactly backwards: I
	merely recognize the fact that there is a difference between that
	which is alive and that which is not alive, while you not only
	recognize the existence of sentience/sapience but make ethical
	judgements, i. e., "assign status," BASED on these criteria, as in
	"it's OK to kill carrots for food, but not cattle."  Now, you can
	deny and/or ignore this as much as you like, but, based on your
	postings to date, it remains true nevertheless, and you have given
	us absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

[...]

>ry> What you say is correct, as far as it goes, but that uncertainty
>ry> is a real problem, isn't it, Russell?  Even though you don't "know"
>ry> what goes on in my mind, you're reasonably certain that I do have
>ry> one, especially since I'm of the same species, so the drawing of
>ry> conclusions is a reasonable action, based on similarity of structure.
>ry> But what happens when you get to forms of life which are NOT
>ry> similar?  Do your conclusions remain as reasonable?  I think not.
>
>Give me an example, Rich.

	Cut the baloney, Russell.  This tactic is both transparent and
	puerile.  Surely, you can think of a living thing which is not
	similar in physical structure to humans without help from me.
	You're just stalling again.

>ry> All that can be said of dissimilar life forms is that their reactions
>ry> to similar stimuli may not be congruent.  You most assuredly can NOT
>ry> assume that these reactions are, therefore, less critical to the life
>ry> form in question, or that the life form is not deserving of similar 
>ry> "respect."
>
>Disregarding the importance of sentience and sapience for a moment,
>please explain why we should regard a mindless "living" entity with 
>greater "respect" than a mindless non-living entity?

	This is yet another stalling tactic: Russell is trying to deflect
	attention from his rapidly disintegrating position by attempting
	to tar his opponent with the same defective brush.

	The question, of course, has nothing to do with "non-living entities,"
	but with the assignment of status to non-human species.  The word
	"species" clearly denotes living things.  This distraction won't
	wash.

[...]

>ry> Give me a metric, Russell.  How do we eliminate the arbitrary
>ry> nature of your "meaning" test?  "Thoughts and feelings?"  What
>ry> on Earth are "thoughts and feelings"!?  How do we know whether 
>ry> "thoughts and feelings" exist in a non-human species? 
>
>How does a man who's skeptical about the "thoughts and feelings" 
>of other beings manage to overlook his own use of the verb, "know"?  
>Without reference to thoughts and feelings, please define the 
>expression, "How do we know".  

	We've been over THIS before, as well...you have absolutely no
	shame, have you, Russell?  Read on....(sorry, net.folk).......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Sep18.220038.12945@pixel.kodak.com>:

   rl>I'm sure we'll be able to communicate better after you take the time to 
   rl>define the word, "KNOW".  Thanks in advance.

   ry>Since you seem to be rather lexicographically challenged on this 
   ry>point, simply substitute the word "recognize" for "know" in the 
   ry>appropriate passage and re-read it.

From <1992Sep22.013104.19877@pixel.kodak.com>:

   rl>I'm asking you to define the word "know" as it applies 
   rl>to Rich Young's grasp of ideas and beings that exist outside his
   rl>own mind.

   ry>The question is asked and answered, Russell; you asked for a
   ry>definition based on my usage, and I gave it.

[...]

   rl>I'll respect your admonition _after_ you explain both the term, "knowing"
   rl>and the phrase, "meaning of the passage".....

   ry>  "knowing" - already addressed in previous postings and in this one.

   ry>  "meaning of the passage" - "idea being expressed by the particular
					combination of words." - as if you
					didn't already understand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Do you know how silly you look when you try this kind of thing?
	Do you care?

	And again you've attributed something to me that I have not said:
	I'm not "skeptical" about the existence of thoughts and feelings
	in other animals, I simply want you to show me in which species
	they exist so that I can determine what's politically correct to kill 
	for lunch.

[...]

>Unless there's been a recent breakthrough that has escaped my 
>attention, no philosopher has ever provided an absolutely solid 
>proof of the "other minds" problem.  Unless you can provide a 
>"metric", as you say, for measuring human thoughts and feelings, 
>it's hypocritical to insist that we provide one in the case of 
>non-human animals.

	Cute.  Logically bereft, but cute...in the most pejorative sense
	of the word.

	Let's see now, if I can't prove that YOU think, it's hypocritical
	for me to ask you to provide a concrete measure for your assertion
	that some OTHER species think and some don't?  Is that about it?

	Do you see the fallacy here, or shall I explain?

	OK, here's the problem:

	   1. if human thought can't be measured, then how can humans
		possibly use the presence or absence of similar mental
		processes as criteria for ethical judgements of other
		species?

	   2. If thoughts and feelings in other species can't be measured
		or defined, then thoughts and feelings as criteria for 
		ethical judgement MUST be arbitrary, as in "random or 
		capricious."

	The real hypocrisy is in your continued insistence upon the use of
	undefinable, unmeasurable, and therefore arbitrary criteria to assign 
	ethical status to non-human species.
  
>rl> Of course, it'd be easier for us to base an ethical decision on 
>rl> something simple like the whiteness or blackness of fur, but the 
>rl> simplicity of this definitive approach would reflect stupidity,
>rl> not intelligence.
>
>ry> But at least whiteness or blackness of fur can be established
>ry> objectively. 
>
>You're fooling yourself.  As Hume demonstrated several centuries ago,
>we can never comprehend real objects with absolute certainty.  Our
>senses, not to mention our cognitive faculties, simply aren't perfect. 

	Oh, Russell, I didn't realize!

	Had I only known that, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, you
	can't tell black fur from white fur..........

	   o  First, you need to define "meaning" for us, since you claim
		that "meaning" is necessary to make life worthy of human
		concern.  We need a definition so that we may apply this
		standard to all species and classify them accordingly by
		your values.

		So far, your arguments are rather like those against
		pornography: "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I
		know it when I see it."

	   o  Second, you need to tell us which external entity gave you
		the right to make life and death judgements of other species
		based on your ill-defined "meaning" test.

	   o  Third, you need to tell us the source of your absolute deter-
		mination that it is "wrong" to kill sentient/sapient animals
		for food.

	   o  Fourth, if the determination of "right" versus "wrong" in this
		area of discussion originates from within the confines of
		your own mind, you need to explain to us why we should
		blindly accept your judgement as absolute, or be relegated
		to that slag heap of humanity you use for those who do not
		agree with you.


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