# Ethics and Sentience



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rather than try to salvage my other thread from a spam-fest, I'll let that one continue with jokes while serious answers come here.

To make it even easier, I'll reduce the opening question too as I'm sure the fact that I've even started a SECOND paragraph is already putting you off.

What level of sentience/intelligence/consciousness/self-awareness is or should be the cut off for not only respecting a creature's 'right' to a pain free life, but also to a full life without being eaten?

I seem to remember an interview with Peter Singer that was interesting on this point saying that some animals have greater awareness than a human baby up to a point. I'll try to find it.


----------



## lou (Sep 7, 2011)

I don't believe there is a satisfactory answer to your question. I suppose the belief that humans are intrinsically more valuable than other animals, would be the strongest argument. However, I might choose my dog over some humans, if the choice were to arise. As I've gotten older and owned pets, my views have dramatically changed on this topic. It's something I think of often.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I dont think animals nor humans have rights to anything, but seeing animals suffer appeals to my 'sympathy'.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont think animals nor humans have rights to anything, but seeing animals suffer appeals to my 'sympathy'.


Rights is just an easy word I'm using which I don't really want to get into a debate about, but, whatever you want to call them, I think it's fair to say we have 'rights' to certain freedoms, to privacy, to expression etc., isn't it? My question is, whatever you want to call that, at what level of intelligence is it fair to say that an animal has a 'right' to not be hunted or farmed? After all, it is reasonable to assume that, though we are the highest intelligence we know of, we are not the highest form of intelligence possible - so where on the continuum would we draw the line? Or is it every species for itself?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Here's the Peter Singer talk I was talking about. I don't think the entire interview is about animal ethics, but I'll need to watch it again today or tomorrow until I find out which section is relevant (though you should watch the entire thing anyway because it's fascinating  ):

EDIT: The animal ethics part starts at the very beginning, so just watch until you're bored or it goes off topic.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Here's a quick summary that I'll edit while I'm watching (which I'm doing on and off now):

1) We must consider whether or not an animal has the capacity to suffer pain.
2) It is arguably a greater wrong to end the life of a being that has a personal sense of future.
3) Can the animal mourn (potential evidence in gorillas and elephants)?
4) If considering pain on the abortion debate, an unborn foetus clearly has no or little sense of pain compared to a living non-human animal.
5) Once you accept the evolutionary picture that humans are not special, we have to question drawing the line under humans.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It's a tricky issue because we were all apalled, well I was, when seeing that footage earlier this year of the Japanese going on a mass killing spree of dolphins. Dolphins are said to be the most intelligent animals on the planet, or near to that. Anyone except maybe the Japanese, or a certain amount of them, would think it's wrong to kill dolphins. But what about pigs, which are said to be more intelligent than dogs? It's a tricky thing, as the Japanese would justify killing dolphins as maybe part of their culture or cuisine, etc. (& they also do it with whales, all other countries - except Norway, I think, but my info on that may be outdated - have banned whaling). But what about us in the West, who do the same with pigs? 

& then there's protection of animals for environmental reasons, like the whales, also the sharks, here in Australia crocodiles have been protected for decades (before they were on the verge of extinction, now there's too many of them), and also some native fish like Barramundi and Murray Cod.

I hope this is not off topic, I'm just thinking out aloud, responding naturally to the topic. No easy answers here is what I'm saying, and it's of course tied up with other things like culture, the environment, even what countries are willing to sign up to and enforce eg. international anti-whaling treaties...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I often wonder about the question of what societies in a few centuries' time will look back on us for as being barbaric, like we look back at witch-hunting and institutional torture. In many avenues, although we do not have equality, we making great progress in civil rights and freedoms. I have an inkling that, as we become more civilised, we will increasingly look upon meat eating as a barbaric act. Or, at the very least, the way in which we treat animals in our current farming practices.

I am, however, a total ******* hypocrite and eat meat regardless.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...I have an inkling that, as we become more civilised, we will increasingly look upon meat eating as a barbaric act. Or, at the very least, the way in which we treat animals in our current farming practices...


Well, yes. I have read an article by Singer on these kinds of topics, it was years ago. He is Aussie but I think he's lived overseas for decades. What I remember is that in that article he said he was against factory farming. Eg. large scale farming which was a bit like the old Fordist assembly line factory model. The Ford model doesn't consider humans, it's just the outcome, and same with factory farming disregarding the welfare and dignity or rights of animals.

I didn't agree with everything he said in that article, but I do think his writings over the decades have changed some things in a good way. Eg. cage eggs are near to being outlawed here. It's not actually happened but it will happen. Barn laid eggs and free range eggs are on the rise, at least over half of eggs in the supermarket, maybe 75 per cent on the shelves, are either barn laid or free range.

Of course the definition of "free range" is not set down, so some egg farmers do get away with claiming it's free range but in reality it's not much better, how they house & treat the chickens, as the caged ones. But there is a process of certification being developed, and I think a form of it already in place here, by the Royal Society for the Protection & CAre of Animals (RSPCA).

So there are changes of this sort happening, so Mr. Singer's ethical arguments have gone beyond mere theories on paper, but of course there's a lot to be done as you rightly suggest.



> ...I am, however, a total ******* hypocrite and eat meat regardless.


I am the same, but if everyone consumed the small amount of meat I did, then maybe factory farming would not be necessary (eg. the overproduction, overconsumption, the wastage, etc. of many people in Western societies)...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Why not just discuss the works of Plato and Aristotle? I'd suggest looking through these courses, Polednice:

http://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/introduction-to-political-philosophy/content/class-sessions

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/

As for sentience being purely it's own consideration, I'd suggest looking into modern philosophers, because ancient philosophers mostly found the dominant importance of humans self evident. Considering that you (so far as I know) don't believe that humans are part of a unique metanarrative that substantiates them, you may want to look into modern philosophical journals. It seems as if you are looking around here for someone more qualified than you should expect to find, and it may be more fruitful if you would take a look at journals like the American Philosophical Quarterly or the books coming out of King's College London (King's College being prestigious for their contributions to this subject, as well as Platonism in particular).


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Poley, you might be interested in this book by someone who studies this very subject.

Some we love, some we hate, some we eat : why it's so hard to think straight about animals / by Hal Herzog.










All I can say is that since reading it I eat a lot less meat.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

By the way, I made a post on another site a while ago that you might find interesting, coming from my viewpoint:

"the most popular Bible reference for this subject is Genesis 1:26:

(AV) 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The two important words here appear in succession: "b-tzlm-nu" and "k-dmuth-nu". "Tselem" means image, from an unused root meaning "to shade", which is a figurative expression. "Dmuwth" is a resemblance, and in this case it's being used adverbially. The name used for God in the passage is "Elohim", which expresses dominion and majesty. It's expressed more explicitly in the next verse that we were made in the "Elohim" image, because the two ("tselem" and "Elohim") succeed each other in the same phrase:

(AV) 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

It may sound redundant to a person reading it today, but the word "tselem" is used twice around where we English users place the first comma, so it says that God created man as a resemblance, and then specifies what it is that man resembles ("Elohim"). You see, Elohim isn't necessarily a proper name for God, and isn't always used to refer to Him. "Elohim", like several other names used for God, is merely an adjective. The one proper name for God is Yahweh, and it's an interesting name because it expresses God's relationship with time ("I AM").

Thus, if you interpret it in that the name used for God has import on the image that He made us in, which is grammatically expressed and fits in nicely with the rest of the chapter (which uses the same name for God the whole time and expresses His dominion and majesty), and agrees with and complements what is expressed in the next half of the verse: the Bible says in Genesis 1 that we were made in order to have dominion over our environment, as figurative examples of God's dominion over everything."

"Why is dominion so central, as to be what Genesis 1 truly expresses? Well, our achievements in rationalism, culture, and diverse personalities depend upon our ability to dominate our environment. Chimps aren't moral actors, because although they have "moral parameters" defined, they are very simplistic and obviously a basic response to their environment. Mankind, being able to dominate the environment, is free to operate as a moral actor, and thus can be a Confucianist, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, hateful, altruistic, etc. We are able to develop and think in an epistemic sense of morality, because our survival doesn't basically depend on our sociological behavior, in the same sense that chimps develop inter-relational "codes of conduct"."

So, Polednice, because of our dominion over our environment, we are allowed to make and are culpable for our intellectual decisions. Because our decisions don't all ultimately boil down to self preservation, we can genuinely express different values than self preservation. So, when an animal dies the only value being expressed is survival. When something happens to a human, there are expressions being made about dignity, whether or not the person is a subject or an object, etc.

And finally, a specific literary reference: You may enjoy Martin Buber's _I and thou_ quite a bit, because even if it isn't ultimately persuasive it is always a stimulating read.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Im glad Sid brought up the environmental issues. For me this is the main reason I oppose the majority of hunted meats and factory farming.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Funnily enough hunting is reasonably environmentally friendly here in NZ (as long as you control your dogs and don't shoot someone brushing their teeth by their tent, or your best friend).

Most of the hunted animals are introduced European mammals which play havoc with the native species. 

Returning to the ethical argument, I would rather eat something that had had a life doing its own thing in a natural environment, and hopefully wouldn't know what has hit it, rather than some poor factory farmed beast transported to an an abattoir and subsequently slaughtered.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes, New Zealand is an example where hunting serves a good purpose. Also in many African countries, hunting has created an incentive for farmers to keep wild animals on their land and has led to an increase in the population of most game species.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Rights occur between equals. Animals are not our equals. Therefore they shiouldn't have rights.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Rasa said:


> Rights occur between equals.


This is not apparent to me.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

I remember raising this topic not so long ago while out with a few friends, we didn't really reach a conclusion, but one of my friends said that according to one research people would rather donate money to animals than to humans when ,for example, faced with donations boxes in supermarkets or shops. 
Sometimes I wonder how the situation can be the other way around for some people - when the life of an animal is regarded higher than the life a human (I'm having in mind a dog puppy and a starving child in Africa).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It wouldn't surprise me, since a cute puppy probably doesn't cue any instinctive suspicion of foreignness, whereas starving kids from another culture would at least sometimes.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Rasa said:


> Rights occur between equals. Animals are not our equals. Therefore they shiouldn't have rights.


i fail to see any context in which any of the above sentences -- together, separate, in all permutations possible -- make any logical sense.

ps. humans are animals


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rasa said:


> Rights occur between equals. Animals are not our equals. Therefore they shiouldn't have rights.


Even if we take this as true, the question is where we draw the line about who or what is 'equal', as we are animal ourselves. So, which of these is 'equal' to a healthy living human:

1) A physically disabled, mentally healthy human.
2) A mentally disabled, physically healthy human.
3) A severely deformed, mentally and physically disabled human.
4) A human in a vegetative state.
5) An unborn foetus at various stages.
6) A fully conscious, healthy animal, which feels more pain and is more self-aware than an unborn foetus.

And so the list can go on. We are drawing arbitrary distinctions because we think humans are special, but we are not. We have a unique intelligence, but this doesn't make us _superior_. What it gives us is a responsibility to our fellow suffering creatures given our immense impact on the environment. Interestingly, something I hadn't thought of which Peter Singer brought up was that slippery slope arguments on drawing the line don't take into account that we're already not valuing some humans - humans in a vegetative state, for example, who may recover and may not, we already decide to end their lives though we can keep them 'living'.


----------



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)




----------

