Twelve years after stepping down from the editorship of BBS I have accepted an invitation from the Humane Society of the United States to serve as editor in chief of Animal Sentience, a new journal just about to be launched that is devoted to understanding and protecting the feelings of other species. I hope the findings reported in this journal will help inspire us to “do the right thing to the right kind of thing” so that we can at last put an end to the greatest moral shame of our own species – and the greatest agony of all the others.
Wiebers, David and Feigin, Valery (2020) What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity. Animal Sentience 30(1)
Summary: The planet is in a global health emergency exacting enormous medical and economic tolls. It is imperative for us as a society and species to focus and reflect deeply upon what this and other related human health crises are telling us about our role in these increasingly frequent events and about what we can do to prevent them in the future.
Cause: It is human behavior that is largely responsible for the alarming increase in lethal zoonotic diseases that jump the species barrier from animals to humans: (1) hunting, capture, and sale of wild animals for human consumption, particularly in live-animal markets; (2) massive overcrowding of animals for human consumption in stressful and unhygienic industrial “factory farm” environments, a major direct cause of new disease outbreaks and mounting antibiotic resistance; (3) vast numbers of wildlife species threatened with extinction from habitat destruction and incursion.
Action: The trade and consumption of wild animals in live-animal markets should be banned in all countries. Intensive confinement of animals in factory farm operations should be discontinued worldwide for the sake of animals, humans, and the environment, and we should rapidly evolve to eating other forms of protein that are safer for humans. Additional investment in plant-based agriculture to grow crops to feed humans rather than livestock for human consumption will feed more people while utilizing far less land and water, allowing for the preservation of vital ecosystems for innumerable species.
Each of us can have a positive impact, beginning with mindfulness about what we eat and how all of our daily choices and actions may be affecting animals and natural habitats. Rather than simply attempting to react to crises like COVID-19 after death and destruction are already upon us, we need to address underlying causes and act now to prevent future disasters.
Re: Harnard, Psychology Today (2015)
ReplyDelete“ I think the needless hurting and killing of sentient beings is the greatest moral shame of our species—the only species that has any choice in the matter, and the species that is doing all the needless hurting and killing, on a monstrous and still mounting scale. Notice that I said sentient beings. That covers all needless hurting and killing of human beings too. But the laws forbidding needless hurting and killing of human beings are already on the books just about everywhere, and most of us abide by and approve of them. Not so for the needless hurting or killing of nonhuman animals.”
The fact that we are better at mind-reading human minds has clear consequences in the structure of our politics and society. We can correctly assume that other humans feel because we know that we feel (while we can’t be sure, if it is a game of probability then the probability is pretty high). But because we are uncertain about the probability of the feeling capacity/mechanism in other beings, we do not establish the proper measures to protect them, especially legally. If humans feel, we should protect those feeling lives. The logic seems to be that if we are not sure that other animals feel, then we should not let our ignorance inform policy -- we simply should abstain from protecting all sentient beings because sentience has yet to be proven (while human sentience has not been proven either, we nevertheless accept its truth because our intuition correctly leads us there). But is this a fair conclusion, doing nothing because we are uncertain?
This goes back to the consequences of accepting the hard problem as unsolvable: we must acknowledge sentience in other animals because even if we are uncertain about that sentience (as with fish), the consequences of falsely assuming non-sentience are incredibly violent. I think Harnard makes a powerful statement in acknowledging that he is advocating against the needless harming of sentient beings *including humans*. The reasons why activism for the lives of non-human beings is essential, but two stick out to me personally: 1) those beings without human language capacity cannot convince us of their feeling capacity (despite it being there) and so it is our responsibility to speak for them in the face of human violence, and 2) our ability to harm other beings when our intuition points to their being conscious has tremendous implications for our capacity to hurt other human beings -- if we can slaughter innocent beings “because they are not humans like us” we are also capable (and do) commit atrocities against humans who are “not like us” (consider the many genocides of the modern era, as well as the propagation of hate in the current political climate).
And of course, the consequences of animal killing, beyond the realm of specifically animal ethics/activism, has certainly caught up to human life -- our natural environment cannot sustain our violence against animals, which is made increasingly clear by the volatile changes to our climate.
(P.S. The Beyond Meat burger at A&W is super tasty and totally vegan, if you get it without mayo. I highly recommend it!)
The problem that is causing so much gratuitous suffering to nonhuman animals (and to certain extent also to human victims of humans) is not the Hard Problem but the Other Minds Problem: We do not feel their pain.
Delete“The problem that is causing so much gratuitous suffering to nonhuman animals (and to certain extent also to human victims of humans) is not the Hard Problem but the Other Minds Problem: We do not feel their pain.”
DeleteI would agree with Prof. Harnad that the OMP is more to blame for the ongoing massacre (that and probably judeo-christian heritage whereas animals that were once considered soul-less are now considered “objects” or “personhood-less” in a legal sense).
I would also agree that the simple theory of ethics described by Prof. Harnad (it is wrong to hurt needlessly, eating meat is needless and eating meat is hurt a lot of non-humans and humans too) will probably be more efficient than any scientific account or complicated theories about whether or not non-humans animals feel pain (because even so science would be 99% sure about feeling in non-humans animal like fishes or birds, today’s scientists are 99% sure that humans are causing an environmental catastrophe and real changes are very slow to be instantiated).
I think the last week topics finished nicely the course, in the sense that it reminds us that however wonderful and intriguing cognitive science could be, at the end, it is not what matter, and cognitive science is not really good to deal with ethics (or feeling in general, as demonstrated by the hard problem). even solving the hard problem of cognitive science would probably not solve many problem in ethics (if any).
Re: Antoine Milette-Gagnon “I think the last week topics finished nicely the course, in the sense that it reminds us that however wonderful and intriguing cognitive science could be, at the end, it is not what matter, and cognitive science is not really good to deal with ethics (or feeling in general, as demonstrated by the hard problem). even solving the hard problem of cognitive science would probably not solve many problem in ethics (if any).”
DeleteI agree with you. To me, this is truly an invitation to move beyond the field of cognitive science. Although it has yielded some great insight into the human brain, it has yet to bring about any viable hypotheses for the Hard Problem, and many areas of the Easy Problem remain unclear. Cognitive science also relies on things such as the Turing Test and weak equivalence to bring about possible answers to scientific inquiries, which, as we have discussed in class, have many shortcomings. After this class, I am of the opinion that the field of cognitive science has to severely renew itself if it wants to remain relevant in the real world, and bring about new insights into the mind.
Antoine, cogsci certainly can't solve the hard problem (but that's not an ethical problem). It can help with the other-minds problem, though, and that is relevant to ethics. And it can help in animal welfare.
DeleteJustine, I think you're too hard on cogsci! What are the shortcomings of the T3? And isn't weak equivalence. Computationalism is wrong, whether with weak equivalence or strong. And outside computation, weak equivalence is just underdetermination, as in any other science
“But what about the conflict-of-vital-interest criterion? As I mentioned, a lot of the hurting and killing we do of lab animal victims is not even justifiable as potentially life-saving or pain-reducing for humans. That kind of research should not just be better regulated, but not conducted at all.”
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, what would be the answer to someone who said that conducting animal research was necessary for human life in order to discover life-saving treatment? What is the difference between this and a Felidae needing to hunt prey to survive?
I believe Professor Harnad touches on this in the interview. He states, “In the case of life-saving biomedical research a case can be made for conflict in vital interests: the laboratory animal’s life and the human life it could save.” What I believe is troublesome about this type of argument is the subjectivity of it. Who decides what is life-saving/life-easing and what is not? I believe Professor Harnad would largely dismiss a plethora of animal research because there isn’t a direct or tangible outcome to save human and animal life.
DeleteI completely agree that when there is a non-animal research method available, that method should be used over animal research. But for more than one hundred years, almost all of the scientific breakthroughs that help save human and animal life has been due to animal research. For example, medical breakthroughs in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, organ transplants, and antibiotics were all due to animal research. It is a tricky job to draw the line on which animal research is worthwhile, but I do believe a lot of animal research is currently justified by conflict of vital interest.
I think the difference lies in the true necessity of the action. We have a physiological need to eat, drink water, excrete waste, etc. We, however, don’t have a physiological need or primal urge to experiment on lab mice in the hopes of finding a cure for diabetes or what-have-you.
DeleteNon-human animals don’t have medical research laboratories where they experiment on smaller, more defenseless animals. If an animal gets sick in the wild, it either gets better or it dies. Just because we have developed brains complex enough to carry out scientific research doesn’t mean it’s necessary to do so; a life-or-death situation that isn’t based on a physiological need doesn’t mean it is morally permissible to inflict pain on an innocent being.
There is no question of morality in the wild. A lion will eat a gazelle because it is hungry; the lion does not question his values or question whether the gazelle suffered or if its death was justified. As humans, we have the ability to think critically and question the world around us. It’s not a matter of thinking that humans are better than other animals, it’s just a matter of knowing what we are capable of and how this affects the ways in which we choose to live our lives.
Type I. There are areas of research that clearly do save, or are likely to save lives
DeleteType II. There are borderline areas in which it is not clear whether the research saves, or is likely to save lives.
Type III. And there are areas where it is clear that the research is just curiosity-driven or career-driven or incompetent and is unlikely to save lives.
I will not try to estimate the proportions; only to say that there is an awful (and I really mean awful) lot of Type III research masquerading as Type I or Type II, and that this is an enormous moral problem for us, and a terrible, gratuitous agony for the victims.
That said, it remains true that by far the greatest amount of gratuitous agony for animal victims comes from our use of them for food, fur, fun, and from our invasion, pollution and destruction of their habitat, not for life-saving.
As long as that remains true, we are unlikely to be conscientious about Type III research masquerading as Type I or Type II.
(BTW, the proportion of curiosity-driven, career-driven and incompetent research is high in other sciences too, but the research materials used are not sentient.)
What would be your differentiation between Type I, Type II, and Type III in terms of using animal research?
DeleteMarine, I would say:
DeleteType O: Never hurt any sentient being needlessly.
That already entails (1) ending the hurting of animals for food (except in the remaining subsistence cultures), fur or fun, and (2) ending Type III research completely. It would also entail (3) scrutinizing Type II research much, much more rigorously than it is now, for whether it is really necessary for life-saving , and (4) scrutinizing Type I research much, much more rigorously than it is now to minimize suffering.
After class today and after reading Professor Harnad's interview with Psychology Today, I definitely agree that animal research should be limited to the greatest extent as possible, and if it has to be done, follow strict guidelines to limit animal suffering to the highest degree. With that being said, I am not sure if it's as easy to split types of research in to categories (Type I, Type II, Type III). What I am trying to get at is that it is easy to say that Type III research should be cut, however there have been life saving discoveries that were found by accident or through curiosity driven research. An example of this although not by animal methods was the fluke discovery of penicillin. This discovery is life saving, but that was only found out after the fact. If one was applying for grants to research a specific topic, who decides what is Type III or Type II? It seems that it is often determined post-experiment whether or not the experiment is life-saving or not.
DeleteI assume, that one's inner pig would say that undergoing research with the optimistic view point that you may discover something life changing isn't enough to justify the suffering of all the lab animals, but I think it is something to discuss considering the amount of emphasis large research institutions value curiosity-driven research and innovation.
Akhila, there is no exact solution for the boundary between Type II and Type III, but, as with pornography, for which there is also no exact boundary, there is a lot of Type III where you know it when you see it.
DeleteAnd in general, it does not follow from the fact that some improbable things do happen, that therefore we should ignore probability.
Curiosity-driven research is only fine when no one is hurt. (And don't place much faith in the "judgment" of large institutions and funding. Like evolution, it's "lazy" and there are many casualities.)
My inner pig says that she and countless others, everywhere, every second, have 30 minutes left, after lives of unimaginable agony, and none of that has anything to do with life-saving. Maybe the II/III boundary will become clearer to people when they are no longer doing that to us just for the taste...
Just to play devil's advocate, do other animals care about harming animals when they go to eat them? A particularly graphic video of a bear mauling a deer in someone's backyard comes to mind. Bears aren't obligate carnivores, so they shouldn't get a pass on killing another creature as it isn't vitally necessary. Any instance of an omnivore eating another animal falls under this umbrella of non-vital killing of a feeling being. But are bears, catfish, American crows, and other omnivores that eat feeling beings lumped in with non-vegan/vegetarian humans as ethically wrong?
ReplyDeleteAnother devil's advocate argument: While I see the ethical problems with killing animals knowing there is a good chance they feel pain when we can survive off other food, isn't humanity's ascension to such control of the food chain a side effect of our brains? I won't argue that it's ethical, but it sure is effective for keeping us from starving (at least until we end up overpulling the planet because of the factories). An opportunistic omnivore will eat whatever is easiest to attain (usually something herbivorous because it takes less energy to attack an animal than a bunch of berries), so humans just made it easier to attain meat. Evolution gave us these smart brains, and we used them to make food easier to find (for most).
The mark of a smart person, though, is their ability to rethink their positions, so now society is using those smart brains to rethink our mass killing of animals, which is good.
Despite how tasty a good brisket sandwich with cornbread and mac and cheese on the side is.
"Devil's Advocate" Arguments often mask unconscious (unfelt) assumptions:
DeleteDevil I: The cognitive capacity for ethics and law has not evolved in any species but our own (evolution is lazy). Other species "commit" rape, racism, violence, torture, bullying, subjugation, slavery and genocide. The devils' advocates need to ask themselves whether this obvious fact has any implications for human ethics. Does it justify our doing likewise? Does it mean nonhuman animals deserve their fate, at our hands?
Devil II: Human omnivory was useful, indeed necessary, in our ancestral environment(s): so why not keep practicing it now? Because, like our sweet tooth, it is no longer necessary; but, unlike our sweet tooth (and smoking), which only cause moderate harm, needlessly, to ourselves, meat-eating causes unspeakable agony, needlessly, to countless innocent sentient victims every minute of every day.
An "opportunistic (nonhuman) omnivore" will also steal, attack, bully, rape, subjugate, enslave or kill when it feels like it. "My ancestors and cousins do it" is not a defence, either ethically or in court (except for psychopaths).
I'm not sure it's just our smartness that is making us think the better of doing harm to sentient beings; I think our mammalian mind-reading heritage of empathy and compassion toward our young and our kin -- on which lazy evolution forgot to (or could not) put genetic bounds -- also has a hand in it: We are not psychopaths (or any other kind of devil).
“Do other animals care about harming animals when they go to eat them?” I think it is an interesting question about the non-obligate carnivores. Maybe here, weak Sapir-Whorf plays a role in the emergence of ethical reasoning for humans. The fact that animals don’t have language may be the lacking component for such a reasoning about “hurting without the need to hurt” to be made. Or did the ethics come before language? If so, why and how?
DeleteTo Prof. Harnad: Is there any “giant” theorists about the relationship between the emergence of ethics in relation to language?(asking for "theorists" because I am guessing we wouldn’t have solid data about it)
One of the best researchers on the evolution in ethics is Frans de Waal, including his latest book, Mama's Last Hug.
DeleteDo we only extend our own moral obligations to other people that behave morally responsible? Definitely not - (an obvious example: children, but also, as a society we accept that bad people have rights).
DeleteI don't think "other animals don't care about harming other animals when they go to eat them" is a very good Devil's Advocate argument.
First of all, this would not relieve our moral obligation to them. Also, as far as we know, (most / many) other animals cannot conceive of an idea of "moral obligation" anyhow - so it's ridiculous to apply this standard to them.
Also, as a species, pretty much all of our future meals are guaranteed. We don't live in fear of starvation. Even though a deer (who is an opportunistic carnivore) doesn't dietarily need meat to survive, probably opportunistically does - eating a mouse when it's available makes it more probable that the deer will have the energy to escape predators and get another meal. In our case, eating meat does not increase our chances of survival.
Erin, you're right that it makes no sense to discuss cognitive and affective options that lazy evolution has not conferred on other species, and especially not in order to justify our inflicting misery on those species without vital necessity.
Delete(I don't think deer can or do hunt live animal prey (though they will defend themselves violently when they can). When starving they will try nibbling at carrion -- or plastic, but I don't think that makes them "opportunistic carnivores"! Just desperately hungry.)
In all honesty, I don’t think it’s realistic to get the majority of people to stop eating meat for moral reasons. Just as it is not realistic to get people to stop eating fat, junk food, sugar. Sure, some people will avoid those foods, just as many people have avoided meat consumption, but most people tremendously lack self-discipline, even when they know they should stop eating it they don’t. For instance, some morbidly obese people will continue to eat junk even though they might have been warned that it will kill them, if these people wouldn’t muster up a little discipline to save their own lives, its unrealistic to think that they would to save the life of an animal they probably care very little about. Admittedly, this is an extreme example and doesn’t apply to most people, although I do believe most people do try to change their diet to a healthier one unsuccessfully. Ultimately, I think if given the choice, most people will succumb to temptation and rationalize their decisions. I guess that includes myself as I am not a vegan.
ReplyDeleteAll the countless victims can do is hope you are wrong, Johnny.
DeleteBut in some ways it's even harder than what you describe, because eating (excessive) fat, junk food, and sugar is just (moderately) bad for the health of the eater (tobacco, alcohol and drugs are even worse), whereas the main reason for mercy is the agony of the eaten. Hence the OMP: We don't feel their pain.
With climate change, it's our future pain, or that of later generations that we don't feel.
But we have nevertheless renounced and outlawed theft, violence, rape, aggression, bullying, subjugation, racism, torture, slavery, murder and genocide across the years, all of which had had some perks for us that we were attached to.
So maybe there's some hope for mercy for our nonhuman victims. Maybe one day we'll recognize rise that senticide, too, is wrong, and needs to be outlawed too.
You mention that "we have nevertheless renounced and outlawed theft, violence, rape, aggression, bullying, subjugation, racism, torture, slavery, murder and genocide across the years, all of which had had some perks for us that we were attached to". And I agree that maybe in the future, consumption of animal products will be outlawed if people start realizing that senticide can be considered a crime. However, I think that's the problem: the consequence for senticide doesn't seem that big of a deal compared to crimes committed against other people. This is because of the ignorance we have towards the OMP for nonhuman animals. We don't feel the pain of a cow that was killed to give someone a burger. Even in this case, I don't think people would say that the cow didn't feel; quite frankly, they just don't seem to care. However, when we think of another human being hurt, we can "feel their pain".
DeleteInterestingly, there are some nonhuman animals that we would never think of harming, such as pets. I don't know what underlies the discrepancy between not wanting to harm a dog/cat but feeling satiated and satisfied after having a burger. If I had to guess, it's because we are able to bond with pets and empathize with them, but bonding with a cow is less heard of. Maybe if humans were able to bond with nonhuman animals (that are also not considered pets), senticide would be considered as more of a crime.
I hope our altricial mirror-neurons for suffering in our own young (and the seamless similarity with other humans and other mammals) will awaken mercy toward all animals just as it does for our adopted pets. Bonding with the rescued victims in animal sanctuaries (as well as helping the refuges) would also help reach our hearts.
DeleteWhat you are saying about feeling empathy for pets like dogs and cats but not for other mammals like cows or even monkeys is super interesting ! How come we feel empathy for them when they are even less similar to us than other mammals like monkeys? Would it be due to evolutionary or cultural processes? Mirror neurons are one of mechanisms that allow us to feel empathy, for other beings that are similar to us, so shouldn't we feel more empathy for monkeys that is the mammal the most similar to us more than for dogs and cats?
DeleteYes, primates resemble us more, so we can probably detect their distress and mind-read them better than other mammals. But dogs are a special case, in that they have been selectively bred for thousands of years (hence genetically modified) to have more the traits we value and recognize. And cats are a special case because so many people adopt and live with them, so they learn their traits more fully than those of a monkey they've only seen once in a cage, despite the resemblance. Those who have adopted monkeys in their homes can probably mind-read them the best of all.
Delete"But in practice, they may either believe that (1) the hurting and killing is vitally necessary, or that (2) the beings don’t really feel the hurting, nor lose anything in the killing: They may believe animals are not sentient, or that their sentience, unlike ours, somehow does not include the capacity to suffer" (2015).
ReplyDeleteI think there may be some people who believe that nonhuman animals don't feel pain (or are in denial about this fact) however I do think that a lot of people know that nonhuman animals do feel pain and are capable of being in pain in similar ways to us. Perhaps this knowing is an *unconscious* knowing - a sort of purposeful 'ignorance'. But nonetheless, I think people are aware of the harm they are causing. It is just that our world allows us to be so distant from that pain - so distant that it is not allowed to creep into out minds in a way that could sway our decision to eat meat or harm animals - be it for science, fashion, food, etc..
Additionally, people believing "(1) the hurting and killing is vitally necessary" I think addresses one of the main reasons that most people are not vegetarian or vegan. Many people have been brainwashed by the meat and dairy industries that they absolutely *need* to eat meat or to drink milk, for example. But in reality they are many alternatives ways of getting protein, B12 vitamin, calcium, etc. which do not include killing of harming animals. Growing up in a household that didn't drink milk or eat very much meat I understood that it was not vital to our survival and that we can easily swap out certain vegetables, nuts, seeds, plants in order to gain the same beneficiaries of milk or meat. However, I do remember all the other kids being adament that they *needed* to drink milk and eat meat in order to grow up healthy. There may be some health restrictions/conditions that wouldn't allow people to healthily survive with these substitutions alone. However for the general (of normal health) public it is not vitally necessary.
However, additionally I do think they are other restrictions that don't allow people to have access to these vegetarian/vegan substitutions. There are many socio-economic elements that come into play when talking about the accessibility of veganism. Unfortunately, many people don't have access to the necessary products that would make a vegan diet sustainable - this can be seen with accessibility of options in restaurants and grocery stores in certain areas of the world. Certain parts of the world are not able to source or grow vegetarian/vegan products. Additionally, often times these vegetarian/vegan substitutes are much more expensive and many people simply can't afford to live a lifestyle supplied by these products. However, it is important to remember that this is an issue with the system at large which places less importance on marginalized individuals or groups. It is not the fault of these people that are not given access to these choices. This is something we must strive to change by changing our institutions and the social structures which makes these choices inaccessible to some.
Flora, yes, there's unawareness, disbelief, denial, and cognitive dissonance. (And a minority of people are true psychopaths.)
DeleteBut I think most people are decent and just don't realize the scale of the horrors. And I think the web provides a potential way to sensitize them -- if not to give up meat right away, to agree to a mounting meat-tax that will leverage a gradual transition to completely plant-based food for everyone.
Informing people of the fact (and it is a fact, not just a moral hope) -- that meat, milk and eggs are definitely not necessary for our survival and health -- is much easier these days, regardless of what industry keeps trying to make us believe. I think that in the prosperous parts of the world (which is where it should all start) most people know it already. It is their cognitive dissonance about facing up to the monstrous extent of animal suffering that goes into their taste preferences and habits that allows potentially decent people to keep on doing it.
The OMP: We cannot feel others' pain. That's what keep's us in ignorance and denial.
But it's not true that we cannot feel others' pain. Perhaps reptiles, ampibians and invertebrates can't, but altricial mammals and birds can -- in our own young, and, because lazy evolution never gave us a kinship detector -- in anything that looks and behaves like our altricial young (across the whole developmental spectrum). Those cues to helplessness and need are the ones that make us imprint on our own young -- and on adoptees and "pets"; and that make us empathic and compassionate toward orphans, human or nonhuman, and helpless victims in general.
Erica, refuges, where animals are saved from slaughter, offer plenty of opportunity for human bonding (and also for helping). One wonderful one that's nearby is SAFE. There are many others.
DeleteThat's where parents should be taking their children so their natural mammalian empathy can grow (instead of telling them the usual shameful lies -- that their parents were raised to believe -- about needing to eat meat to grow and be healthy, and it's ok because animals do it to one another, and when we do it we give them a good life and end it mercifully).
Bringing children to refuges to bond with the victims can also be paired with even just the softest glimpses of what really goes on in animal breeding, rearing, transport and slaughter. Normal children don't need anything near the full graphic truths: just a slight glimpse, coupled with loving relationships with animals, is enough to awaken their natural compassion and imprint them on nonhuman species, like ducklings.
I am disappointed that I see the difference between the energy with which I addressed this issue as a teenager and how exhausting I find the subject now. It’s incredible to me the aggressiveness with which people approached the topic of veganism with me. I felt attacked as the killjoy just by virtue of my presence, since my choices in-and-of-themselves challenged people’s behaviours. The stereotype of a preachy vegan is absurd to me given my experience of people taking every opportunity to challenge me, even when I actively tried to avoid confrontation. It is hard to not feel beaten down, and thus it is refreshing to see others engaging in the work of being outspoken and advocating for the recognition of feeling states in other species and how our behaviours should reflect that.
ReplyDeleteWe prize ourselves on being rational beings, and yet we use rationalization to avoid acting in accordance with what is a moral imperative. The argument that eating meat is essential to our survival and health is increasingly unavoidably false (wouldn’t be a fair amount of vegans walking about) for the vast majority of people who do not suffer from starvation. The rationalization that we kill “humanely” is an oxymoron and ignores all the evidence to the contrary. The idea that animals have it better than in the wild ignores that chickens and cows wouldn’t be in this position if we didn’t breed them for consumption in the first place. Besides, the goal is no suffering, not only less.
What weighs on me is how people can simultaneously intuit feeling in pets and yet devalue the lives of farm animals. This goes beyond the Other Minds problem, because the recognition of feeling in others is there, and yet it is denied according to convenience.
I agree that it is strategic to begin by focusing on the recognition of feeling in other species and having people no longer eat meat. It will be easier to rectify the use of animals in research when there is already a motive to protect animals and an acknowledgement of the value of their wellbeing. One step at a time!
I realize this is more of a global comment on the last three readings rather than being specific to this interview.
DeleteRachel, your comments are proof that early sensitization to the tragic suffering of animals awakens compassion for a lifetime.
DeleteThere are far too few vegans as yet to make a difference to the fates of most animal victims, but there are already enough so young vegans no longer need to feel alone.
There is no need to be "preachy" because the truth is so simple:
Everyone agrees that it is wrong to cause suffering needlessly.
Eating meat is needless.
The animals we eat suffer.
No more needs to be said to anyone unless they ask further questions. But do not be drawn into arguments. We owe it to the victims to try to inform people about their agony. But with those who want to mock, argue, or debate, there is no point discussing it further. We just need to be politely resolute about not arguing.
Animals being used in research has been a subject heavily debated. It is without a doubt that animal research has aided health research and given us the ability to look at diseases in a whole new way. A more invasive way that is. Now I read your comment at the beginning about you not necessarily going after type 1 or type 2 research but that there are some type 3 research at hand that is masking as type 1 and 2. To that, I say that there is definitely some research that should not be conducted on animals and are not necessary. However, with the current ethical guidelines, and updates being made constantly, is there not a 10x more stringent hold on animal protection and safety in animal research. From how animals are treated in the lab facilities (according to ethical guidelines) and how animals are euthanized and cared for, the guidelines around animal care in the research setting is much more than stringent than a what you would see in a meat farm or even in the majority of domestic animal households.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, I think there is a discussion to be had on whether we have the right to exclude animals from our moral arena. Rollin’s theory of animal welfare points out how using intellect, superiority, and power are not justified to exclude animals from the moral arena even by our own standards. By this notion, however, it would not be justified to conduct research even for type 1 and type 2. Even if we were to make an argument for benefitting the life of a human, what good does that do to the animal? Sure, there may be some trickle off effects that may benefit the animal at the end, but you can’t deny that the primary goal of health research is conducted with the best interests of the human in mind. At the end of the day, the animals never signed a form of agreement knowing what they are getting themselves into. They also don’t get a run down the study afterwards either.
With the modern technologies that society has to offer, I do believe your notion of research that is “vitally necessary” will become less and less. There are multiple ways to bypass animal research and conduct research on consenting adults.
The "Hard Problem" of Ethics
DeleteAmy, you are absolutely right that the ethical regulations for animal research (in reputable universities and research institutions) are incomparably more stringent than those those of the meat/fish/dairy/egg/fur industry.
But they are still far, far from being stringent enough, either in principle or in practice.
I agree, though, that the highest priority is to end the horrors of the meat/fish/dairy/egg/fur industry not just because the number of victims is so much greater, nor just because their suffering is so much greater (there are some experiments that are as terrible as the worst of industrial cruelty), but because the horrors of the meat/fish/dairy/egg/fur industry are not necessary for human survival and health in the industrial world today.
I think it is a dangerous strategic mistake for animal activists to focus first on animal research today (except for vigorously opposing research that is not necessary for saving human lives [Type 3]) instead of on ending the completely unnesessary horrors of the meat/fish/dairy/egg/fur industry. I say it is dangerous because focusing first on animal research invites the response: "Look, they say they're trying to get you to give up meat because it is not nessary for your health, but they're also trying to get you to give up the benefits of medical research which is necessary for your health!"
To try to combine the pleas to end the two kinds of horrors together is to invite rejection of both pleas -- on the grounds that the "necessity" criterion is bogus.
I understand (and feel) why vegan activists feel it is an abandonment and betrayal of laboratory animal suffering to dissociate it from industrial suffering; but conflating the two weakens the case against both. In activism against animal suffering in research the primary emphasis should be on ending the research that is not necessary for human health. A vegan society will be much more ready to confront the hardest case of all: animal suffering caused by research that is necessary for human health.
I agree and hope that technology will reduce the number of such cases, as you say, but we have to recognize that cases that cannot be replaced by technology represent a conflict of vital (life/death) interests for our species as surely as the conflict of interest between predator and prey does for obligate carnivores.
Inescapable conflicts of vital (life/death) interests between species are in fact the "hard problem" of ethics. Negative utilitarianism ("minimize overall suffering") produces equity on paper within a species ("I'm afraid there was not enough medication for all the fatally ill children so we decided by lottery and I'm afraid your ailing child has to be allowed to die untreated") but it does not work across species, neither at par (insects = infants), nor in any "weighting" scheme (10 billion insects for your baby).
I have no solution. I just recognize a non-solution when I see one.
Today’s discussion made me ponder over whether lab-grown meat could be a viable and ethical alternative to meat obtained from slaughtered animals. If this synthetic production method were perfected, then the mass rearing of livestock in inhumane conditions would become an obsolete practice. This would essentially be a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, in which people concerned about animal welfare would be able to consume meat based products guilt free. On the other hand, it appears to be a rather resource intensive process and might take years to become affordable to the average person. In addition, it wouldn’t preclude us from continuing to holding animals in atrocious conditions for the sake of obtaining secondary products like eggs and milk. One could argue that the resources put into the development of lab-grown meat could instead be redirected into research on maximizing crop yields from legumes and cereals. I’m curious to hear your opinions on the subject. Is lab-grown meat a viable alternative, or should we entirely move away from meat, given that we no longer depend on it to survive (at least in non-subsistence societies)?
ReplyDeleteLab Meat
DeleteErica, maybe eventually lab-grown meat (and -- why not -- lab-grown milk and eggs) will be possible and affordable. But do you think the animals should just keep on paying the cost with their suffering until that happens, even though one can already stop producing and eating them today, at no cost to our health, only to our current tastes and habits?
I don’t think animals should keep suffering until we’ve figured out how to mass-produce these products. In an ideal world, their pain and suffering would end immediately. However, while I think most people (except psychopaths) acknowledge that animals suffer needlessly and that this can’t go on, I’m skeptical as to whether the global demand for animal products will slow down. I’m still hopeful that raising awareness about the suffering caused to animals, coupled with the solutions proposed in class (and why not lab-grown animal products if they were to become marketable), could potentially make a big difference.
DeleteErica, let's hope (for the animals' sake) that your pessimism turns out to be mistaken, because if you are right, they are lost. See Pascal's Wager. It's better (for them) if act on the assumption that pessimism is wrong; if it's not wrong, it's no loss. But if we act on the assumption that pessimism is right, and it's wrong, then we have made a self-fulfilling prophecy and betrayed the animals. (The "Precautionary Principle" is the same idea as Pascal's Wager.)
DeleteRE: yesterday's lecture
ReplyDeleteI was someone who was having a difficult time grasping why so much discussion about the hard problem matters so much if it (in my opinion) is unsolvable, so I appreciated the lecture to put it into perspective that feeling is all that matters.
Regarding the two reforms that were mentioned in class (CCTV in slaughterhouses & the tax reform on animal products), I think those are two very viable solutions to help the victims. I don't think it's plausible that everyone in the world who has the means of becoming a vegan will do so in our lifetimes.
As we mentioned, there are those who are ignorant to the pain & suffering inflicted by the meat/dairy industry, and also those who are in denial. But what is there to be said about those who are aware of the suffering and certainly do not deny it, but continue to consume it because their personal pursuit of pleasure & taste overrides the desire to not cause suffering to sentient beings? Does this make someone a psychopath, or does this just put them in the category of being in denial?
"what is there to be said about those who are aware of the suffering and certainly do not deny it, but continue to consume it because their personal pursuit of pleasure & taste overrides the desire to not cause suffering to sentient beings? Does this make someone a psychopath"
DeleteWhat do you think?
[The reason I made the point about the zombie-universe and the unipolar pleasure-only-universe was to point out that (1) pleasure is morally trivial and (2) not commensurable with pain, especially between (rather than within) individuals: How much ecstasy for me is worth imposing how much agony on someone else?]
“unipolar pleasure-world”
ReplyDeleteDuring the lecture, we talked about how a world only with pleasure cannot exist, and it is the negative feeling that makes a world a plausible world (when it comes to positive/negative feelings). I think I could argue the same thing for “positive feeling.” If there were no positive feelings, the difference in the feelings coming from different degrees of pain would not be plausible in such a world, either.
One would argue that there is a limit to negative feelings – death, I disagree, but surely it would serve as an ultimate end to the pain. However, isn’t there always an ultimate end to pleasure, too? When pleasure caused death, the pleasure was ended; and even if the pleasure did not cause death, death happens no matter what. Thus, if the feeling has the power to terminate itself is not the criterion for examining the necessity of the feeling.
Thus, it seems that it is necessary to have both positive and negative feelings. (It reminds of categorization. One cannot categorize if she is not exposed to both the members of the category and the non-members of the category.)
However, is the absence of negative feeling necessarily positive feeling? Or, is the absence of negative feeling necessarily positive feeling? I’d say no. Maybe what really is a necessity is the neutral feeling. But what is “a neutral feeling” anyways? It seems to be “no feeling.” And by deceasing the pain or creating the absence of pain, what we get is more “neutral feeling.” Although, if we introduce neutral feeling, both a unipolar pleasure-world and a unipolar pain-world would be plausible.
The point was not so much that a unipolar pleasure-world cannot exist but that in such a world, just as in a Zombie world (with no feeling at all) nothing would matter: there would be no right or wrong; no morality. Morality is about right vs. wrong, and the measure of "wrong" is pain (to someone), not pleasure (except, of course if failing to get pleasure feels bad, in which case it's not a unipolar pleasure-world.
DeleteI would not say that death was the "limit to negative" feelings (if by "limit" you mean "maximum"): Many feelings are worse than losing one's life (and some people commit suicide because of intractable, incurable pain). And all we can actually feel is dying (if we are still sentient), not death. But there are lots of different ways dying can feel, some worse than other forms of suffering, some not.
Yes, pleasure can be terminated voluntarily; sometimes pain can too (sometimes not). But I think I am missing your point.
You are right that either unipolar pleasure or unipolar pain, like feeling itself, is an "uncomplemented category": we cannot feel negative instances, only quantitative differences (and whatever qualitative differences there are). This is all very speculative; I have no idea whether feeling zero pleasure or zero pain in a pleasure-only or pain-only universe would be enough to be able to "categorize" pleasure (or pain); perhaps. Pleasure-pain happens to be a bipolar continuum, with a zero-point in the middle, like hot/cold. But we also have unipolar continua, such as sound-loudness, which goes from 0 to maximum. There is no negative sound, yet we can distinguish zero-loudness (no sound at all) from other points along the loudness continuum
With hot/cold not only is there a neutral zero point, but the felt quality of the two halves of the dimension are not the same. Less warm does not feel like more cold, nor vice versa. They are really two qualitative dimensions, tail to tail, like pain/pleasure.
Thank you for your reply! I think the point that I failed to put emphasis on was “the measure of ‘wrong’ is pain (to someone)”, and I agree with it. Yet, in a unipolar pleasure-world (which we do not live in), when one fails to get “as pleased as others”, one may not feel bad (pain/wrong) because “less pleasure” does not equal to “pain”.
DeleteI totally agree that in a Zombie world with no feeling at all, nothing would “matter” – if no one can feel anything, there would be no feeling of rightness or wrongness – happy or sad, who cares? However, does rightness or wrongness have to co-exist with feeling? (In a formalized math world, what is right would be right, what is wrong would be wrong, and no feeling is involved.) Is it true that morality can only be measured in terms of “feelings”? In other words, is morality, to some extent, “absolute and objective”? People may feel different things for the same thing, but if there is an absolute judgement for morality (even to some extent), one can overcome “feelings”, which cannot be felt by anyone else but oneself. Yes, feeling is the only thing that matters, but feeling is also the exact reason why a lot of unnecessary suffering happens – we do not feel others’ feeling, and no matter how much one uses words, pictures, or whatever to make the others “feel the feeling”, it is at best an approximation, may not even be a good one, and it can fade away.
So, in a formalized math world, what would be right and what would be wrong? (I am not a mathematician so I could be wrong) self-consistency would be considered as right, and a contradiction (self-inconsistency) would be considered as wrong. However, we do not need to feel a contradiction – a contradiction is a contradiction. (Now that when I think about it, this system is based on some subjectivity, too.) (I apologize for the fact that my other comment really sounds like argument/recrimination; it was not my intention, I was hoping to bring out the “contradiction”, but after a few days when I look back on it, it does sound like that, and it is not the best approach – it is my self-inconsistency.) What is the nature of the feeling of “wrong”? What is the relationship between the feeling of wrong and the feeling of contradiction in real life? (I know we have been saying that “habit/tradition/addiction is not a justification nor an excuse for hurting others” (I cannot agree more), but what if this is the reason why a contradiction may not have caused a feeling of wrongness? (And based on that, not being able to feel that something is morally wrong does not mean that something is not morally wrong.)
"Formally correct/incorrect" (or even True/False) in maths is not the same as "morally right/wrong," and in neither a Zombie-world nor a Uni-Pleasure-world would it "matter" whether something was T or F: to whom? why? how?
DeleteBut "felt" does not mean "absolute" or "objective." ("Subjective" is one of the weasel-words for "felt.") If something hurts, it matters to the one who is hurt, but maybe not to the one doing the hurting. (OMP) That's why we need laws to protect victims. From hurt, not from logical contradictions (though those have to prevented too, as they can sometimes cause hurt to sentients).
Yes, cognition (rationality) requires that we reject logical contradictions; in the Trump era there seem to be many people who don't care. One can play this con-man trick with words; but Trump needs to "care" about contradictions when he wants/needs lunch (and needs to reduce uncertainty). Psychopaths need to abide by logic too... See Lewis Carrol's "What Achilles Said to the Tortoise."
Prof. Harnad mentioned above "in some ways it's even harder than what you describe, because eating (excessive) fat, junk food, and sugar is just (moderately) bad for the health of the eater (tobacco, alcohol and drugs are even worse), whereas the main reason for mercy is the agony of the eaten. Hence the OMP: We don't feel their pain."
ReplyDeleteSo most people (those loves fat, junk food, sugar, tobacco, alcohol and drugs) are even willing to harm themselves simply for pleasure, how can we, humans, be expected to give up pleasure because of others' feeling, assuming we are perfectly aware of their agony? So the best thing we can choose (as most of us are doing right now) is to just blindfold our eyes, ignore their suffering, pretend we don't know, tell ourselves they don't feel what we feel, so that we can accord with our conscience and continue living in the current lifestyle without guilt. That's why I doubt whether it is possible for people to stop eating meat.
And I want to bring back the question about where to draw the line of "necessity". I tried to ask in class - when we are discussing about this "vital necessity", does mental health count? If eating all those unhealthy and cruel stuff (sugar, fat, meat, dairy, etc.) kind of plays an unique role as the outlet of one's negative feelings: pressure, sadness, depression... does this form a case of "necessity"? If so, it'll render the "vegan world" even harder to reach, since it can be used as a perfect excuse.
I think this is a really complicated problem, at least in current situation, and especially in practice. I personally find it so hard to reconcile my craving for meat, or even for food, with my conscience and guilt to other living creatures in this world. I must confess my hypocrisy.
Hi Junlin!
DeleteI have also thought about the problems that you mentioned in the comment, and I think it certainly is a matter of choice – choosing to face it or deny/avoid it. Denial/avoidance is the easy way, yet it is not the sustainable way, or the “right way”. I do not know if it is realistic for everyone on the planet to stop eating meat, but it is not the reason why we should just let the unnecessary suffering for animals happen without doing anything about it. Less unnecessary suffering still means something – in fact, it may forever be what we can fight for because there will (probably) always be some sort of unnecessary suffering and “the only thing” we can do is to make it happen as less as possible.
I found it quite difficult to give up meat, too. Cooking is a crucial part of my family, and (as you know) meat is a crucial part of Chinese cuisine. People in my family are in general not open to express our positive feelings toward each other explicitly, and to prepare food for our loved ones is how love is conveyed. Sadly, this "taste of love" is usually constructed on the suffering of others -- it did not necessarily need to be like this, it just happens to be like this. My mom, who I later know to be a sensitive person yet denial in nature when it comes to suffering, was aware of all that, yet she still chose to pass it on because it has “always” been like this. She was suffering from this unnecessary suffering of the others, too, and in order to suffer less, she chose to "not think about it." I think what was happening was that since consuming meat is so deeply rooted as a tradition/habit that “giving it up” did not occur as a feasible solution, so not a solution; then, when there is no solution, denial/avoidance is the only way out. (But is it really not a feasible solution?)
In terms of mental health, I think, first of all, there are a lot of ways to solve mental health issues, and as long as there is one way that does not involve causing unnecessary suffering to animals, this is not a necessity. But no matter what, I find it quite ironic to solve (but not really) one’s pain by (not against) causing pain to the others... (Will it not back-fire (one day) to cause more pain?)
Junlin, Yes, eating certain foods is like an addiction. But people can overcome addictions. Addiction (or habit or tradition) is neither a justification nor an excuse fur hurting others. Incentives can help; so can laws. I'm sure some people were as "addicted" to slave-owning or wife-beating or bullying as to dessert-eating.
DeleteNo, addictions (smoking, alcohol, sugar, fat, aggression, rape) are not vital necessities: food, water, air, shelter, safety are vital necessities.
If I knew what would induce people to stop hurting other sentient beings needlessly, I would do it. But I only have hypotheses -- and the CCTV-crowd-sourcing and meat-production/consumption tax is a hypothesis. The only hypothesis I reject is that the majority of humans don't care if they make sentient beings suffer needlessly, and cannot be inspired to change. (I reject it for the same reasons Pascal mentions in his Wager. And because the fact that most people are not psychopaths is the only hope for the victims of humanity, human and nonhuman. And that to suppose otherwise risks become a self-fulfiling prophecy.)
Naias, I "just" stopped eating meat when I was seventeen and that's all I did(n't) for most of my life; and I am now deeply ashamed. It is not enough to stop eating meat. We have to inspire others to stop doing so too. The "pyramid scheme." Not by argument or recrimination. But by appealing to their hearts, by bearing witness to the uspeakable, unbearable suffering of the uncountable victims.
Hi, Julin:
DeleteI think the comment you bring up about human beings harm themselves and harm others is an interesting point! Another way to address the idea would be Mill’s principle of ‘harm’
, which I think, although has its own limitations, undergirds the moral codes in many discussions of freedom and morality of individual’s choices. Miller’s principle roughly states that: “the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others.”
I think when Miller talks about the principle, he was mainly referring to human beings, but I think this principle can still apply when we talk about animals here. I think in a way it has some power in explaining the problem because that, yes, people eating junk food and smoke is imposing harms, but the harm they imposed is on themselves voluntarily, not on others. (And if the smoking is in public spaces like the library, this may impose harm to others and are therefore not justified.) Their action of junk food is of their freedom since no one else is hurt by this action. Whereas in the case of eating meat and killing anymore, you are not the one who would be the recipient of the harm you initiated. The choice of action would, for Miller, harm others (other creatures in this case) who should not bear the harm just because you wanted to. Therefore, it is fine that you choose to eat junk food yourself, and as we can agree, but it is not fine to inflict pain on animals as I wanted, as it is not fine to force people to eat junk food.
Yes, harm is about harm to others; I think the rest is covered by (vital) necessity.
DeleteThis week's materials have been shocking but not all that surprising. Our tendency to doubt whether another entity feels is rooted in self-serving denial. We do not want to inconvenience ourselves with this not-so-radical shift in ideology because it would mean that we are responsible for "needless hurting and killing, on a monstrous…scale." I think that almost everyone is aware of the inhumanity of the meat industry, but I believe that we purposefully neglect these barbaric acts to protect our hedonistic way of life; people choose to remain ignorant. As one of our classmates mentioned in class, many individuals would choose to ignore CCTV broadcasts of slaughterhouses, despite the fact that they are live streams. For instance, I am sure that there are live streams of horrible pedophilic acts on the dark net and yet, not enough is done to stop those crimes. Of course, animal killing and child pornography are issues of dramatically differing scales. I do admit that perhaps livestreaming is a step towards outlawing animal killing, but I don't think that everyone would care enough to sacrifice their meat-eating habits.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Professor Harnad's discussion on animal testing in labs reminded me of "paralytic perfectionism" -- scientists are wary or even avoid studying questions (like animal consciousness) because we cannot prove it with absolute certainty. I think that this phenomenon also reflects how so much of science is curiosity and career-driven. Many researchers are unwilling to even question whether animals feel pain merely because they deem it unknowable, despite the mounting evidence. Not only does paralytic perfectionism potentially impede scientific progress, it once again exemplifies humanity's active and selfish neglect of other species' wellbeing.
Infanticide and pedophilia are already crimes, but nonhuman senticide is not. Crowd-sourcing CCTV will not draw in everyone; but maybe it can draw in a critical mass, so there is public support for legal reform.
DeleteDerya, I am glad you are more optimistic (see earlier reply to Erica about pessimism). Patience is, alas, impossible for my inner pig, and countless others, every second of every day, everywhere.
DeleteReading this article reminded me of an ethics training presentation that was part of a graduate research introductory course. The ethics board officer spoke extensively about the practices that we must inculcate to reduce harm to animals. The officer detailed out the different types of research (similar to type 0,1,2 and 3 mentioned in the comments above), and emphasised on the importance of conducting research on animals only when absolutely necessary. But once they left, and the class started discussing the protocols, we realised that the animal research labs were not adhering to them strictly. Various students spoke of their direct experiences seeing the guidelines not being implemented. While spot checks are a traditional way of ensuring the rules are followed, like Stevan mentioned in class, cameras provide us a better and more discreet way to ensure adherence to policies.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking more about the discussion in the last class, and the role of advertising in shaping our desires and habits, I am of the opinion that it might help to utilise some of the amount raised from increased tax on meat/dairy products to advertise delicious vegan meals and restaurants. This could serve a pull function, shaping taste preferences of the current and future generations.
Whatever works. If it's pull from taste (and taste ads) so be it! (But I'm suspicious of appeal to taste, because that's been the "pull" toward causing animal agony in the first place.)
Delete"I don't hurt despite the pull of taste" feels to me like a stabler and more reliable (and decent) solution than "I'll stop hurting, but only if I can get the same taste without it."
“But when we consider conducting and publishing animal research in BBS or any other journal, what is usually at stake is not vital interests, not research that will save—or will lead to research that will save—lives or ease pain. It’s much more likely to be curiosity- or career-driven research. I doubt that there were many BBS articles, if any, that saved lives or eased pain.”
ReplyDeleteI was doing research on rodents that induces various pain models to them and tests what would be their behavioural response. Sometimes I get into the deep doubt of whether the whole thing is justified. Is there any general principle that you would suggests, when gauging a specific research proposal, what is the necessary? Would that be a consequentialistic account between human and animal? Would that be a one based on motivation and intention?
I also wonder, for behavioural tests like the one I mentioned, do you think that computational simulation would be a good alternative to resolve this issue? As the Church-Turing theorem of simulation would allow for the simulation to be equipped with the all propositions of the real model and be able to predict causally the explanation for a behaviour. Does this account mean that to have a computation of simulation substitute the animal behavioural tests is theoretically plausible? What would be the barrier in real life as rarely real projects would adopt such an approach. Where does this unpredictability come from?
No one has a reliable way to determine what would and what would not be potentially life-saving research. There is, as usual, uncertainty near the category boundary. But in most cases the answer is obvious.
DeleteThe Strong C/T Thesis only works if you already have a good causal model; usually we don't have that. But it's always good to try to design one.
The points made at the beginning of this interview about not using animals or their models in this case because the experiences cannot be compared the way anatomy can are, apply to the previous text on animal sentience. From out anatomy, one cannot tell much about the human experience, our thought our feelings. How then can we assume (like is done in the paper on fish not experience pain), from an animal’s anatomy alone, that it cannot experience pain. While its anatomy lacks things that are now thought to be necessary to our experience of pain, what is to say that it does not experience pain in some other way? The technology (or perhaps other proven methods, who knows) to get a glimpse into an animal’s experience may not come around for a very long time, but I believe the example of imaging not being reliable in studying the human experience, is good enough proof that we should not confidently state that we are sure of anything an animal experiences. We are barely sure of how to describe or model our own experiences, feelings or thoughts, which we have much more insight into.
ReplyDeletePlease see the replies about Pascal's Wager and the Precautionary Principle.
DeleteResponse to the interview and the lecture.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to start off by saying that we, as humans, have no right to believe that other animals do not feel pain. As individuals, we all know what it is like to feel pain. We all know how terrible and agonizing pain and suffering can be. As humans who understand what it feels like to hurt, we should not be ignorant and assume that other animals cannot feel pain. If anything, we should be the most understanding!
In class Professor Harnad mentioned Matthieu Ricard and the 4 questions he asks people:
1) Do you believe (1) it is wrong or (2) it is not wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily?
2) Do you believe (1) it is necessary or (2) it is not necessary for people to eat meat in order to survive and be healthy?
3) Do you believe the animals we kill to eat: (1) do or (2) do not suffer?
4) Do you eat meat?
I believe that these questions are a great way to get people to realize the hypocrisy and inconsistencies between their morals and actions. They are DELIBERATELY eating meat. They are intentionally putting themselves in a state of denial to avoid dealing with this conflict of interest.
The first question that Ricard asks is an important one. This is a great first question because it sets up the audience to realize their hypocrisy later on when he asks more questions. Everyone (except for psychopaths…) should be answering the same way: that it is wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily.
The second question that Ricard poses has people reflect on the necessity of eating meat. This question should get people to think about all of the advances that we have made in regard to helping humans getting better nutrition and being healthy. When you look at all of the evidence with face value, everyone should come to the same conclusion: that it really is not necessary for people to eat meat in order to survive and be healthy. Eating meat is a luxury, not a necessity. If it was necessary, all of the vegetarians and vegans would have not been able to survive! If you give the second question just a little bit of thought, you could see that eating meat is not necessary.
Ricard’s third question involves the other mind’s problem. He is asking them if animals such as; pigs/cows/fish/ect… are able to feel pain and whether they suffer when they are killed in mass production of meat produce. The other mind’s problem should be something that is highly emphasized! It is important that humans recognize and acknowledge that they are causing millions of animals’ pain and suffering. Emphasizing this point is an important one because we have papers like “Why Fish Do Not Feel Pain” circulating and saying otherwise.
I think this fourth question is meant to get people to start thinking about their choices. It is to get people to think about why they choose to eat meat if they are against causing unnecessary suffering to others? If they believe that people do not NEED to eat meat to be healthy? If they believe that the animals killed in slaughter houses suffer?
Ricard’s 4 questions really highlight the denial of the human population regarding mass meat production. It is a sad reality. People’s morals and beliefs do not align with their behavior. I believe that Professor Harnad is correct about focusing on highlighting that it is NOT a necessity to eat meat. Eating meat is a cruel luxury… We need more people like Matthieu Ricard and Professor Harnad and other inspired vegans to continue highlighting the importance of this major issue and inspiring change.
I agree with you that many people are just in denial when consuming meat and animal products that it comes with pain and death to that animal. I think this in denial nature comes about in many aspects relevant to this course, especially in arguments against what Harnad (and now I) believe to be true. I would like to add that there's a similarity with using makeup products, skin care products, cleaning products, etc. that have been tested using animals. So many people are aware that it's happening but they don't connect to be the same as themselves. This disconnection between the self and others is a part of the OMP, and why I agree with you that it should be addressed more publicly and frequently than it is. Introducing this question into the public could have the ability to change the thinking of a lot of people.
DeleteTwo students from last year's Psyc 538 are now doing cogsci projects on diet and cognitive dissonance and how information might help resolve it.
Delete"The humanitarian regulations of university biomedical research laboratories are far from being strong enough—how can you ever make deliberate hurting and killing humane? It’s like regulations for making slavery, rape, torture or genocide humane."
ReplyDeleteThis comment evoked a memory of a podcast I listed to a while ago. Starting at about 1:36:00, CGP Grey speaks on a conversation about lab grown meat and the growing industry around this as a meat for human consumption substitute. Grey does also make the anecdotal comment that he views eating animal protein as something we will likely look back on in much the same way as we do slavery today.
[HI #75: "World's Most Interesting Podcast" - Hello Internet](https://overcast.fm/+B1qxUQ_nE/1:39:15)
Grey goes on to make the case that while the moral argument is valid and will be looked back on as the reason that the change was made, the trigger for this becoming more widespread will be economic. When lab grown and other meat alternatives become more economically advantageous to humans without sacrificing too much of the taste or comfort that humans are accustomed to, it will become the expectation and animal protein will become the exception.
Kyle, please see the replies about Pascal's Wager, the Precautionary Principle, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies. If we just kept killing and eating them for the taste, even when we knew it was no longer necessary for our survival and health, until we invented a way to get the taste without the torment -- that would not just provide a potential historical object lesson about their ancestors for our future descendents to think about: It would mean unimaginable agony continuing needlessly, open-endedly, for countless innocent victims. That's something for us to think (and do something) about, now. (Greta's showing the way.)
DeleteReally good interview here, and I think Professor Harnad makes some strong points. Should the principle of: it is (morally – I assume) “wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary”, then assuming we all endeavor to be morally righteous beings, veganism is indeed the morally virtuous path. However, I don’t believe this explanation is entirely convincing or persuasive. Moral duty can be perverted in a myriad of ways, and I am certain there are individuals who are unperturbed by either the suffering of sentient beings (if they even think they are sentient at all), or by the label of being morally wrong. Resultantly, I believe that to get people to be less keen on relying on animal products we need a social transformation which de-emphasizes their use in a similar fashion to the ‘if not vitally necessary’ clause stipulated earlier in the moral principle. By reducing the emphasis of animal products in the diet of humans (let’s say by introducing a ‘only eat meat for dinner’ clause, we could potentially reduce the amount of animal products and suffering in this world by a tremendous amount. This is predicated on the assumption that generally, people do not take kindly to being told that their actions are morally unvirtuous according to someone else’s own moral code (see: religion). So, while I agree with professor Harnad’s take, I also feel as though if we want to see change in this world, it must be one that engenders social and cultural implications for society rather than one that comes from a moralizing voice from above. I understand I am late to the party on this one, but nevertheless am definitely interested in your thoughts, Professor.
ReplyDeleteMatthew, yes, there are people who don't care, and resent being told. I don't know what their percentage of the population is. But those who are trying to help animals are addressing those who do care, or would if they knew the facts. I don't know what their percentage of the population is either, but I hope it's the majority. That's animals' only hope.
DeleteThe interview is very succinct, but at the same time has all the necessary elements. As I mentioned in class, a lot of people are just going through cognitive dissonance, and as much as they know that we are hurting these animals and they live under horrible conditions just for us to do what we want with them, they know that this is wrong. As much as smokers know that smoking leads to lung cancer and they still cannot stop. The problem is really in their minds.
ReplyDeleteVeronica, yes, there's cognitive dissonance when we do things that we want and it conflicts with what we feel is right. The big difference between smoking and meat-eating is that with one we are harming ourselves and with the other we are harming others. We don't feel their pain (because of the other-minds problem); and part of cognitive dissonance is downplaying it.
Delete