Big Blue Wave's Comments
It's as sentient as the worm that wriggles before, during, and after it's impaled on a fishhook.
It might be "alive" in some sense -- which would be a whole 'nother discussion -- but not as you are "alive."
"Tell me that's a "non-sentient" being."
It's a non-sentient being!
Praise the Lord.
The truth shall set you free.
I'm doing research on a protein (YtvA) from Bacillus subtilis that apparently allows it to flee from blue light. Does this ability make them sentient? I certainly hope not, since I'm ordering their slaughter on a regular basis.
We humans have a general tendency to recognize features of ourselves in other species (like interpreting emotions into the facial expressions of apes or dolphins). It is a completely understandable error to make in this case as well.
As for the "silent scream" ... hm ... unconvincing.
So, I'm just curious, lastchancetosee, but who or what, exactly, gave you the authority to kill these Bacillus subtilis? And what, after all, does personhood actually mean?
It seems to me that there are a limited number of possibilities with regard to the special status of personhood: 1. There must be a supreme being who made human beings "special"; 2. There was a conference of all living organisms which bestowed "specialness" (personhood) on so-called "sentient" beings; 3. Individuals who considered themselves to be special formed a very exclusive club and decided among themselves who could join, or 4. We're free as individuals to call ourselves persons or not, sentient or not, and include or exclude whomever we please.
Scientists don't mess with terms like "sentient" and "person." They say, "It lives" or "it doesn't live" and it belongs to the species homo sapien or, perhaps, Bacillus subtilis. It is philosophers who come up with language like "sentient" which, not surprisingly, makes their "group" the most person-like of all.
As far as the options above, I get why Christians see homo sapiens as special, but since I think we can agree option 2 is nonsense, if you decide to reject option 1, you're left with options 3 or 4, unless you have some other idea I haven't considered. So which one fits for you? And how does that apply to those Bacillus subtilis you're murdering every day?
To the first question I'd answer with either 'me' or 'no one'. Same answer you'd get if you asked who permitted me to pick a flower in a meadow or a leaf of a tree.
As to the other questions: I deny the premise. Human beings aren't special, so asking what makes them special is nonsensical.
Anyway, the question was sentience, not whether or not humans are special. To infer sentience from a simple reaction to avoid an intruding object is wishful thinking in the extreme.
"...who or what, exactly, gave you the authority to kill these Bacillus subtilis?"
Who needs "authority?"
And all of your "options" are ridiculous.
But as for who defines "sentient" -- enjoy: http://www.onelook.com/?w=sentient&ls=a
Ah, so it sounds like you fit into the fourth category, then, Janus. I'm pretty sure you'd meet Scott Roeder there, too. Thanks for the list of definitions of "sentience." You might have included "sapience" and "self-awareness," too, just to demonstrate the very great lack of clarity upon which so many lives depend.
"Anyway, the question was sentience, not whether or not humans are special."
Yes, that's true,lastchancetosee,that the question was sentience, but the context was "therefore, deserving the right to live life," which, I think, does make humans special. Otherwise, it would be appropriate for Scott Roeder, Hitler, Charles Manson, etc. to say along with you "either 'me' or 'no one'. Same answer you'd get if you asked who permitted me to pick a flower in a meadow or a leaf of a tree," when asked who gave them the authority to take the lives they did.
[...] but the context was "therefore, deserving the right to live life," which, I think, does make humans special.
Therein lies the rub. I too think that my fellow people are rather more deserving to live life than, say, bacteria (which is why I kill one but not the other) but a) this 'deserving' rests on sentience alone, contrary to what all the pro-lifers claim and b) it does not make us special. We treat ourselves specially, yes, and for very good reasons. But that is not because we are in any way inherently special. We are not. That is the important point.
The humany embryo is not sentient ergo not deserving of special treatment. What SUZANNE described was the illusion of sentience, not sentience itself.
"Ah, so it sounds like you fit into the fourth category, then, Janus."
If that's truly what it sounds like to you, then you need to get your hearing checked.
"You might have included "sapience" and "self-awareness," too..."
You didn't ask.
But since you mentioned it, you've now got the link to look them up your own self. I already know the definitions, but you feel free to play catchup.
But why "deserving," lastchancetosee? In what sense is any one thing more "deserving" of life than any other thing if there is nothing special about one group of organisms, absent a God who created them so, or absent specialness? "Sentience" is a purely human concept created for no other reason than to explain why "persons" are special, "deserving" if you will.
A consistent life ethic seems to me the only rational approach. We have to begin first by saying that all human beings are "persons," that living organisms can't move in and out of personhood. You can't be living and a non-person at one moment and living and a person at another--nor visa versa. You can't be a living non-person in your mother's womb one moment and a living person the moment you change your location. You can't be a person growing up as a child in your parents' home, and suddenly a non-person because of acts you've committed, even if those acts are horribly inhumane. Abortionists, murderers, rapists, terrorists--they don't stop being persons, though in some sense, one may feel that some of those individuals are less "deserving" of life than those Bacillus subtilis you're offing every day. Disabled, unconcious, dementia-afflicted, even dead people are persons and deserve to be treated with a level of dignity that is not afforded humans in the first nine months of life.
I'm not opposed to providing more protections for "lower" life forms. I, personally, could probably be persuaded to become a vegetarian with a strong enough argument. But without protection for all human beings as persons, I don't think you have a leg to stand on to protect other life forms.
Commenting by HaloScan
