Are There Sentient Animals?

[Jadzia]

Now, I do still eat cheese and milk, because--and vegans should be aware of this--the main reason cows still walk this Earth, or at least this continent, is because they are economically valuable to us. I would not have much faith in the survival prospects of a feral population of cows. It's arguable whether imprisoning and exploiting them is better than extinction, of course.

I understand your point here, but ethics to me is about motives for actions, not the indirect consequences of those actions. I care about the treatment of individual life, through the direct (motivated) consequences of our choices.

When I say direct consequences here I mean something akin with a ball rolling unstoppably down a hill. Indirect consequences are those which can be averted through cognitive expression, or are unforeseeable symptoms of chaos, and we're not morally responsible for those. I avoid the existential problems of causality with this approach.

If cows were no longer economically viable, then became feral, and then became extinct, then so be it. We're not morally responsible if they are unable to prosper. I'm not against natural selection per se, even though I do take an holistic perspective of the natural world, and understand that the loss of a species could have cascading consequences. It may be in our best interest to provide protection for cows. That wouldn't be unethical. Farming them is something different.

.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Iguana Tonante,

I'm not sure I understand the question. I suppose, in a truly enlightened culture about bioethics, there could be degrees of "rights": "plants right" (not to made extinct by human actions) "animal rights" (not to be subjected to unnecessary hardships and pain), "sentient rights" (not to killed, nor to be subjected to hardships and pain), "human rights" (the one we know). I think I could agree with that, but I must say I've not devoted much thinking to that, so there may be some unintended consequences lurking somewhere

Basically, if two creatures are both above a specific level of sentience, even if one creature is more "sentient" than the other, since both creatures are above the threshold, they should both have equivalent rights.

Below that threshold, there would be certain rights they would be entitled to but not as much as creatures equal to or above the threshold.

Well, my opinion would be that, given its greater degree of intelligence, I would probably not understand its morality or its reasons. On the other hand, if it would start treating humans in ways that are against my morality, I will try and fight it, both with my reason and my action. In the absence of convincing arguments, I think it's the only possible course of action. "Because I know better" is not one of them. I guess animals agree with that, since it's not like they don't fight back when we hunt them, and bow their head to our superior intellect. If I have to be a cow, I would be a nasty, motherfucking cow!

But if they are sufficiently intelligent they can just mentally outwit and outmaneuver us with seemingly effortless ease.

Keep in mind intelligence does not equal ethical behavior. There are intelligent people who have no conscience for example.


CuttingEdge100

 

[FordSVT]

The most extreme vegetarian diet I've heard of is based on the belief that plants are also morally considerable, and that most fruits and seeds are also no go for pro-life reasons, in the same way that you consider an animal fetus to be morally considerable, a seed is considered equal.

The diet is limited to a few types of fruit and seeds that are genetically defunct from germinating into new plants, like seedless grapes. There may have been some additional restriction about the fruit having to fall naturally, rather than being cut from the plant. (which draws an analogue with milk being taken from a cow) but I can't really remember now.

That sounds more like pure religion than anything else. Vegetarians can eat a healthy, balanced diet. There is precedence in natural history and even today for a largely or even entirely vegetarian diet amongst large portions of the population. Much of Indian cuisine, for example. What you describe sounds more like a punishment, and it's almost a denial of nature itself in the quest to be some kind of "pure" moral being. Plants and animals need other plants and animals to exist, it's worked that way for billions of years. I understand concerns for animal welfare and not wanting to kill, but to not even eat plants? I assume they also don't walk through a field or through the woods for fear of breaking a twig?

There is a great deal of work being done on artificially created meat protein. Besides the creepies induced by present day sensibilities, is there a vegetarian objection to that? Seems to take the morality out of the situation, unless you believe creating artificial meat is immoral itself.

 

[Jadzia]

That sounds more like pure religion than anything else. Vegetarians can eat a healthy, balanced diet. There is precedence in natural history and even today for a largely or even entirely vegetarian diet amongst large portions of the population.

Plants being morally considerable is the core belief, but the diet itself is just a logical extension of that belief.

The comparison with religion I can understand though. The pursuit of moral purity seems central to a lot of religions. The complex moral philosophy that religions are built on tend to be simplified into easy to follow tenets for the common people: "Thou shalt not X, Y or Z".

Your mention of religion has actually reminds me of Jainism, which (in my crude understanding of it) supposes all life to be sacred, meaning that insects are also morally considerable, and a set of rituals stem logically from that belief in order to avoid squashing them in the course of daily life.

In truth, I do find the pursuit of moral purity to be an attractive goal, and worthy of respect. And while I don't consider plants to be morally considerable, I can empathize with the difficult lifestyle choices made by those who do. Ascetic choices are not really felt as punishment when they have a great personal meaning for the participant.

There is a great deal of work being done on artificially created meat protein. Besides the creepies induced by present day sensibilities, is there a vegetarian objection to that? Seems to take the morality out of the situation, unless you believe creating artificial meat is immoral itself.

I personally wouldn't want it, because I'm quite happy with my current diet, and I don't have any desire at all to taste the flavour of meat.

But is creating artificial meat immoral in itself?

My initial thought is that I'd have no moral objection to it as long as there is no mind being created and destroyed, and as long as no creature with a mind is being exploited, such as having things done to it against it's will. So if artificial meat is a purely mechanical growth, in the same way that a spring onion is, then I have no moral objection to it.

My second thought is on how the product is being engineered. If it involves animals being exploited in the process of developing the material, then it may be comparable to a drug that has been developed through animal testing. In that sense I may have a moral objection. I'll leave you with a little speech that Tuvok gave in Voyager, which went something like this:

"To accept a drug pioneered using wholly unethical research, not only shows approval for what has been done, but also invites for more research of the same nature to be carried out."

 

[Kegg]

I'm not a fan of granting rights to beings which may not even understand the concept and at any rate cannot have the concept communicated to them. I'll wait for the animal rights movement to be staffed by actual animals before I start paying attention, basically.

Anyway, do animals have sapience? I have no idea. I don't think there are any as smart or nearly as smart as humans, though, the gulf seems fairly wide in that regard (even if we did luck into this opposable thumb thing, we also developed a few hundred or thousand languages, any one of which is more complex then the languages animals have.)

If chimps have full "rights" to life but no responsibilities to honour it back (you're not going to drag a chimp to court, are you?),

Well, yes. That or kill it. Either way, there would be a response.

 

[Kelso]

A good number of complex eukaryotes have the capacity for taking in and analyzing sensory information from its environment, but at the distant end of the spectrum, they're more like computers than humans. I would not eat my computer, of course, but that's because I keep my porn on there; the average fish has no such porn-archiving function, and hence is valuable as a food source.

That was fucking hilarious.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Myasischev,

What evidence do you have to suggest that Eukaryotes have the capability of taking in and analyzing sensory information. I'd like to hear a source about that because that is something I don't think I've ever heard before.

CuttingEdge100

 

[DevilEyes]

I'm not a fan of granting rights to beings which may not even understand the concept and at any rate cannot have the concept communicated to them. I'll wait for the animal rights movement to be staffed by actual animals before I start paying attention, basically.

You might accuse me of jumping to conclusions without having an official statement by the representatives of animals, but I kinda have this inkling that they wouldn't like being slaughtered and eaten, or tortured/killed for fun...

 

[Kelso]

I'm not a fan of granting rights to beings which may not even understand the concept and at any rate cannot have the concept communicated to them.

Does that include mentally challenged humans or human children?

Myasischev,

What evidence do you have to suggest that Eukaryotes have the capability of taking in and analyzing sensory information. I'd like to hear a source about that because that is something I don't think I've ever heard before.

CuttingEdge100

I do it all the time.

 

[Kegg]

I kinda have this inkling that they wouldn't like being slaughtered and eaten, or tortured/killed for fun...

Yes. But I'm a big fan of having animals slaughtered so that I can eat them. You see where the conflict of interest enters into the equation.

Does that include mentally challenged humans or human children?

I am against giving children or the mentally challenged voting privileges.

However, they both have varying degrees of sapience (in the case of gifted children, are often clearly smarter than me.)

 

[Zameaze]

I would say that all animals are sentient. They are aware of sensations and emotions, and they feel pain and can suffer.

 

[Kelso]

I am against giving children or the mentally challenged voting privileges.

However, they both have varying degrees of sapience (in the case of gifted children, are often clearly smarter than me.)

I haven't seen anyone advocating voting rights for animals, or saying they should be given the same rights that you and I have. I think the point is more that basic rights should be applied to each species based on their own capacity for intelligence, suffering, or self awareness. Chimpanzees should have greater rights than fish, for instance, just as humans should have great rights than chimpanzees.

The case can certainly be made that members of some non-human species are as intelligent or more intelligent than some members of our species. And modern science is continuing to show just how closely related we are to some of the other animals on this planet. I think we need to move beyond thinking of humanity as separate from the animal kingdom, and start thinking as ourselves as a part of it... the fact that we are the most intelligent species only increases our responsibility to the others.

 

[Kegg]

I haven't seen anyone advocating voting rights for animals, or saying they should be given the same rights that you and I have.

True. But I was observing that there were distinctions I'd believe in when comparing the rights of me and you to children and those with mental disabilities. Nothing as drastic as the lack of rights I'm willing to give cows - I'm quite happy for cows to die for my burgers, and would be a little peturbed if we did the same thing with children.

The case can certainly be made that members of some non-human species are as intelligent or more intelligent than some members of our species.

It wouldn't surprise me if you could say that of a bright chimpanzee compared to an extremely challenged individual. However, if the maximum of potential for animals doesn't quite reach the minimum for sapience, well. I've yet to be sold on that.

 

[DevilEyes]

I kinda have this inkling that they wouldn't like being slaughtered and eaten, or tortured/killed for fun...

Yes. But I'm a big fan of having animals slaughtered so that I can eat them. You see where the conflict of interest enters into the equation.

Well, there are people who are big fans of having other humans slaughtered (although usually not in order to eat them). But most don't humans like to be slaughtered. You see where the conflict of interest enters into equation...

 

[Zameaze]

The way we treat animals is speciesism, plain and simple. If a human baby was born with the intelligence of a cow, we wouldn't eat it; we would care for it and feed it--probably hamburger.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Are there any animals that have sentience? For example, I know dolphins and pigs are considered intelligent animals, but are they sentient? Cows can fashion their own tools.

To be considered sentient, you have to get that joke.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Basically, if two creatures are both above a specific level of sentience, even if one creature is more "sentient" than the other, since both creatures are above the threshold, they should both have equivalent rights.

I can't see why there could not be more than one threshold.

Below that threshold, there would be certain rights they would be entitled to but not as much as creatures equal to or above the threshold.

I think that's exactly what I've said.

But if they are sufficiently intelligent they can just mentally outwit and outmaneuver us with seemingly effortless ease.

Keep in mind intelligence does not equal ethical behavior. There are intelligent people who have no conscience for example.

Again, I think that's exactly what I've said. If they are sufficiently smarter than me they can obviously outsmart me, but if their actions towards humans were against what I consider morality, I will take actions against them.

 

[Kegg]

Well, there are people who are big fans of having other humans slaughtered (although usually not in order to eat them). But most don't humans like to be slaughtered. You see where the conflict of interest enters into equation...

Context is everything?

With the exception of absolute pacifists, most of us are willing to conscience slaughtering people under given conditions - though, naturally, those conditions vary.

The stereotypical examples being as a consequence of wartime, being assaulted or attacked by someone, and so on.

 

[Zameaze]

....With the exception of absolute pacifists, most of us are willing to conscience slaughtering people under given conditions - though, naturally, those conditions vary.

The stereotypical examples being as a consequence of wartime, being assaulted or attacked by someone, and so on.

Yes, but the animals we find on our dinner tables every night have not attacked or assaulted anyone.

 

[Kegg]

Yes, but the animals we find on our dinner tables every night have not attacked or assaulted anyone.

Well, that's certainly not why they're on our tables, of course not. They're there because they're damn tasty. I just ate some chicken, actually. I'm sure that's not how the chicken wanted to go, but for her, them's the brakes.