Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8759999" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Give them a break, guys. The word &quot;sentient&quot; was used as though it were a stand-in for &quot;sapient&quot; for a very long time. It's better to be instructive and positive than dismissive or talking down.Also, Mind of Tempest, the vast majority of living biomass is plant matter, which I don't think anyone argues is sentient. Animal life only makes up less than 0.3% of all life by mass, and of it, the vast majority are marine arthropods, terrestrial arthropods, or annelids, beings that are at the very least of debatable sentience.Sure. I find most of these arguments painfully tedious. The distinction is quite clear: Does the class of entity (species, computer program, crystalline structure, whatever) usually have the capacity to ask questions of the form, &quot;Does X being have moral worth?&quot;? If so, congratulations, members of that species are moral persons. If you have even the suspicion that they might be able to ask such questions, you should presume that that being is a moral person unless and until you can prove otherwise. Dogs are not moral persons, though that does not excuse treating them (or any other non-sapient animal) poorly. An incapacitated, sleeping, injured, ill, or developmentally-challenged human is not stripped of this status solely for any of those reasons.Or, if you prefer, we can use The Words from Star Control II: &quot;Hold! Why do you do this! What you are doing is wrong!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8759999, member: 6790260"] Give them a break, guys. The word "sentient" was used as though it were a stand-in for "sapient" for a very long time. It's better to be instructive and positive than dismissive or talking down. Also, Mind of Tempest, the vast majority of living biomass is [I]plant[/I] matter, which I don't think anyone argues is sentient. Animal life only makes up less than 0.3% of all life by mass, and of it, the vast majority are marine arthropods, terrestrial arthropods, or annelids, beings that are [I]at the very least[/I] of debatable sentience. Sure. I find most of these arguments painfully tedious. The distinction is quite clear: Does the class of entity (species, computer program, crystalline structure, whatever) usually have the capacity to ask questions of the form, "Does X being have moral worth?"? If so, congratulations, members of that species are moral persons. If you have even the [I]suspicion[/I] that they might be able to ask such questions, you should presume that that being is a moral person unless and until you can prove otherwise. Dogs are not moral persons, though that does not excuse treating them (or any other non-sapient animal) poorly. An incapacitated, sleeping, injured, ill, or developmentally-challenged human is not stripped of this status solely for any of those reasons. Or, if you prefer, we can use The Words from Star Control II: "Hold! Why do you do this! What you are doing is wrong!" [/QUOTE]

Verification