Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[Metsfanmax]

See, I am not arguing that fish/cows, etc cannot feel. I argued that this does not make them sentient. That is a matter of definition, not value. I posted a standard definition to show that what I was saying is not, as you claimed, a misunderstanding on my part. It is a disagreement. I also pretty clearly indicated I was aware of this by saying not just that I disagreed, but why. Specifically, I plain dislike attempts by many in the so-called "animal rights" movement to change definitions for political means. Actually I am against ANY change of definitions to suit politics. Doing so is nothing more than a dishonest "bait and switch" tactic. Sadly, it works, but that does not mean its right.

However, instead of even asking why I might disagree, you continued to harp on my "not understanding" because, in your narrow world you feel you have the right to decide that your being a PhD candidate automatically makes you more intelligent and knowledgeable than me, and proceeding to "instruct" me in animal behaviors, why they really do think, etc. The thing is, again, I never disagreed with that, I just disagreed those things were enough to change the definition of sentient to include farm animals. This is ALSO the reason why that opinion piece is just plain wrong. See, he claimed that 2,500 documents supported his position. The truth is that there are many behavioral studies that suggest animals are (essentially) not mindless robots. Fine.. I agree that animals think and feel to some extent. Any farmer with sense agrees. Its actually part of why they get into the field. However, to go from that to insisting it means we declare animals sentient is ridiculous. And THAT is not supported by the research, not at all. It is opinion.

...I really don't care what the definition of the word sentient is. Like, I'm fairly certain that I'm not misrepresenting the views of the scientists involved when I describe sentience the way that I have, and that you are completely misguided on this issue, but I also don't care if I'm wrong on the definition, because what matters is the reality. Animals feel pain in a subjective sense, in a very similar way to how humans do. That is entirely what I meant when I said that animals are sentient. Now you may disagree with me that this is what defines sentience, but I insist that it is what sentience means and that this is not an underhanded attempt on my part to do a bait-and-switch.

I propose that we taboo the word for the rest of the discussion. There is no need to say the word sentient. The argument against cruelty to animals only requires that animals are capable of feeling pain.

Now, I would go further and say that this opinion is not just one I disagree with, it is actually harmful to the animals themselves? Why? Because when you anthropomorphize animals you are not boosting them for what they are, you are making the claim that they have to be appreciated because they are "like us". I feel animals are animals.. and to be respected as such. Mrs, ironically enough, made that point in part with the post on sharks. When you begin to say that animals need respect because they love and feel, then you also open the door to saying that other animals are evil because they kill.

My argument for treating animals as morally relevant beings has nothing to do with them being like humans. The fact that they share some of the same traits that humans do is at any rate not an anthropomorphization. It is an attempt to get us to recognize that our own values for how we treat other humans should guide us in how we treat other animals. The thing is that, perhaps unlike you, I don't respect other humans because they are human; I respect other humans because they have the ability to feel pain and pleasure, and additionally because they are self-conscious and this gives added meaning to their lives. So when animals share some or all of these traits, I respect them on the same grounds.

Now, I would never say that an animal is evil because it kills, but I do think that predator animals cause significant suffering, and if there were some way to get rid of all predator species without substantially disrupting ecosystems (I know that this is complicated, of course) I might do it. The harm caused to those animals in the short term would be outweighed by the reduction in suffering to all others in the long term.

It is also why I said what I did about slaughter and habitat. Despite your claim that "nobody knows", the real truth is that animals are dying from habitat loss and pollution, not so much from people eating animals.

What I specifically said was, that nobody knows whether animals dying from habitat loss and pollution is a good thing. Stop twisting it into anything else. I am advocating that it might be, because the suffering those animals would have experienced on that habitat in the wild in the long run might justify removing that habitat.

Or, to put it another way:
If Bill Devall could not convince me, do you think you can? (and actually Bill Devall is one of those who would most definitely agree with me on habitat loss bit, though he absolutely does not eat animals).

Let's flip the question around -- if you think I have no chance of changing your perspective on this, then why are you participating at all? I am just as happy not to engage with you if you are coming into this from the perspective that this not a real debate, as I did not begin this conversation in an attempt to change your mind, so feel free to exit the conversation at your leisure. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but I don't much care whether you agree with me or not.

[tzor]

...I really don't care what the definition of the word sentient is. Like, I'm fairly certain that I'm not misrepresenting the views of the scientists involved when I describe sentience the way that I have, and that you are completely misguided on this issue, but I also don't care if I'm wrong on the definition, because what matters is the reality. Animals feel pain in a subjective sense, in a very similar way to how humans do. That is entirely what I meant when I said that animals are sentient. Now you may disagree with me that this is what defines sentience, but I insist that it is what sentience means and that this is not an underhanded attempt on my part to do a bait-and-switch.

The Wikipedia definition states, "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively." This in turn leads us to follow the links and look at subjectivity, "Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources." So it's not just a question of the word here, your statement is an accurate description, "Animals feel pain in a subjective sense." The question is whether or not it is true. Animals feel pain, but do they feel pain in a subjective sense?

Now, I would go further and say that this opinion is not just one I disagree with, it is actually harmful to the animals themselves? Why? Because when you anthropomorphize animals you are not boosting them for what they are, you are making the claim that they have to be appreciated because they are "like us". I feel animals are animals.. and to be respected as such. Mrs, ironically enough, made that point in part with the post on sharks. When you begin to say that animals need respect because they love and feel, then you also open the door to saying that other animals are evil because they kill.

There are so many problems with this statement. I'll go from the end and work towards the beginning. Animals are not "evil" because they kill. Animals kill, because, being meat eaters, they need to kill to eat and eat to live. It is not like they kill because of emotional considerations, or the ability for personal gain (although not starving is sort of personal gain, I don't think it qualifies).

To anthropomorphize is to ascribe human features to something. But the question of whether or not animals have the same "features" as humans does not really cover the overall status of the animal extent. "Animals are animals" is a silly statement since animals are never defined, especially in the question of such notions as pain. It's hard to argue of the subjectivity, but some animals will endure pain for greater causes, for example, if their legs are trapped they will suffer the pain of chewing off their own legs in order to escape certain death. Likewise some will endure pain in order to save or nurture their young.

What is "human?" A real human lays down his life for a friend. That's human.

What is "inhuman?" An inhuman delights in torturing others for personal enjoyment, or condones such torture indirectly.

I don't know if animals are "human" but they are clearly (for the most part) not "inhuman." Human beings are the best at being inhuman on many occasion.

[Metsfanmax]

...I really don't care what the definition of the word sentient is. Like, I'm fairly certain that I'm not misrepresenting the views of the scientists involved when I describe sentience the way that I have, and that you are completely misguided on this issue, but I also don't care if I'm wrong on the definition, because what matters is the reality. Animals feel pain in a subjective sense, in a very similar way to how humans do. That is entirely what I meant when I said that animals are sentient. Now you may disagree with me that this is what defines sentience, but I insist that it is what sentience means and that this is not an underhanded attempt on my part to do a bait-and-switch.

The Wikipedia definition states, "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively." This in turn leads us to follow the links and look at subjectivity, "Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources." So it's not just a question of the word here, your statement is an accurate description, "Animals feel pain in a subjective sense." The question is whether or not it is true. Animals feel pain, but do they feel pain in a subjective sense?

When I talk about feeling pain, in my definition that automatically incorporates the concept of having subjective experience. The central question is, when an organism receives a stimulus, is it consciously aware of the stimulus in some way and responding to that at a conscious level, or is it some automatic physical response to the stimulus that involves no conscious response or feedback.

I believe PLAYER is arguing that it is closer to the latter, i.e. that animals' response to stimuli are like plants' response to stimuli, whereas in my opinion the bulk of the scientific evidence points conclusively toward the former, that is, that animals like cows and pigs have a subjective experience in response to these stimuli similar to the way we do.

[tzor]

When I talk about feeling pain, in my definition that automatically incorporates the concept of having subjective experience. The central question is, when an organism receives a stimulus, is it consciously aware of the stimulus in some way and responding to that at a conscious level, or is it some automatic physical response to the stimulus that involves no conscious response or feedback.

I believe PLAYER is arguing that it is closer to the latter, i.e. that animals' response to stimuli are like plants' response to stimuli, whereas in my opinion the bulk of the scientific evidence points conclusively toward the former, that is, that animals like cows and pigs have a subjective experience in response to these stimuli similar to the way we do.

There is clearly a spectrum involved here, and a significant distance between fully subjective experience of pain and autonomic experience of pain. On the one hand, this doesn't give a blanket excuse for autonomic pain reactions since the same pain stimuli can go on both levels. But on the other hand the more complex processing of the pain doesn't mean that an animal is completely "aware" of the pain in the abstract subjective sense.

When we get to "cows" and "pigs" I think this definitely comes into play. Everything I have heard about cows from farmers is that they are dense (and I have known some dense farmers ... strong like bull, smart like tractor dense). So I'm not as confident that cows "complain" about pain. They just feel it and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Pigs, on the other hand, are probably smarter than dogs. They are also highly social. So I would suggest that they could be considerably more subjective than other animals.

[PLAYER57832]

I propose that we taboo the word for the rest of the discussion. There is no need to say the word sentient. The argument against cruelty to animals only requires that animals are capable of feeling pain.

Ok, but this is part of the problem with folks misunderstanding. "politicians" and "well meaning individuals" constantly try and redefine accepted terms instead of just creating new ones. That makes old terms, and anything using those old terms either easily misunderstood, confusing or irrelevant. It does not really change the facts, but leads to a time of confusion, which is then used opportunistically by some folks. It also means that people wind up discussing the definition, instead of the base issue.. which, again, plays into the hands of "politicians" -- folks interested in putting forward their agenda, rather than just discerning the truth.

Now, I would go further and say that this opinion is not just one I disagree with, it is actually harmful to the animals themselves? Why? Because when you anthropomorphize animals you are not boosting them for what they are, you are making the claim that they have to be appreciated because they are "like us". I feel animals are animals.. and to be respected as such. Mrs, ironically enough, made that point in part with the post on sharks. When you begin to say that animals need respect because they love and feel, then you also open the door to saying that other animals are evil because they kill.

My argument for treating animals as morally relevant beings has nothing to do with them being like humans. The fact that they share some of the same traits that humans do is at any rate not an anthropomorphization. It is an attempt to get us to recognize that our own values for how we treat other humans should guide us in how we treat other animals.

That, specifically the part I have colorized, is anthropomorphizing, but I don't want to get bogged down in another debate on definitions.

The thing is that, perhaps unlike you, I don't respect other humans because they are human; I respect other humans because they have the ability to feel pain and pleasure, and additionally because they are self-conscious and this gives added meaning to their lives. So when animals share some or all of these traits, I respect them on the same grounds.

I would argue the exact opposite. The fact that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I think being human means "more respect" in an important way means that you have already put them on a scale with human beings at the top. All of your references are references to humans and how humans think, feel, etc.

My position is not that. My position is that animals are different. This may sound like the old "separate but equal" trap, but understand I am taking a position more like a parent. I don't know if you have kids or not, but if you have more than one, you quickly realize that they are not the same. You can try to treat each "alike", but often that in and of itself means not giving each what they really need. Let's say you have one child who is excellent at basketball and another who is good at photography. Do you make the photographer play basketball with the same intensity as the other? Or, do you say "to each, his needs" you might buy a basketball hoop or gym membership for the basketball player and a art studio membership for the photographer. Saying that animals are not human is even more of this. Animals are distinct. They have needs that are not lesser, but that are very, very different from our own. And, their capacity to deal with various issues is much less. They don't have the ability to adapt and change their environment as we do. When animals change their environment, we don't believe it is "intentional" per se. Also, the changes they make are, unlike the changes we make, part of the system. A beaver makes a dam that turns into a meadow, a lion kills, which reduces the population of zebras. (to be extremely simplistic, but you get the drift) We humans go out of our way to turn deserts into productive farmlands, build cities and ships, create whole ecosystems that are our own creations. We have the ability to make all these changes, but not the ability to understand the import of all we do, we tend to (as a whole, not individually) assume the impact really does not matter. That is far more destructive, in piece (building a particular house or development) and in total than any predator killing. It is also far worse than a traditional slaughter.

This is how I view animals. I know you disdain faith, but it actually comes into play here. I look around and see a unique and wonderful system. Everything here seems to have a purpose, more or less. Take out one part and you destroy the whole. Saying that a bear is more important than a vole is like saying that a piston is more important than an spark plug (disclaimer.. not a mechanic, my analogy might be off , but I could not think of anything better at the moment ). Now, that is not a complete analogy because the truth is we probably can live without some animals and plants, the world is not going to end because some butterfly in the Amazon dies. Or, we hope not. (aka the "butterfly theory") The trap is we don't know just which species we can do without and which we cannot. We are finding out that some small changes are having far, far more widespread implications than many want to believe.

Also, to get back to faith, I don't see death as the ultimate evil, not for humans and not for animals. I see suffering as closer, but even that.. its complicated. Again, I say that for humans AND for animals. I think some of my comments on abortion will show that, though I may be thinking of much, much older threads and discussions I have had here in the past (on abortion, evil, pain, etc.). This is why the bit about Hallal and Kosher slaughter are not mere irrelevancies. They are the point. I am not (think I said that earlier) Jewish or Muslim, but I believe that we are obligated to reduce any unnecessary suffering. In actuality, the truth is we do know a lot about keeping the suffering in killin to a minimum. Where we need more work is beforehand -- in how we raise the animals, in how we lead them to slaughter. But, let me be clear, that is mostly an issue with big factory farms and unskilled small farmers. This is part of why I said that going to a small, local producer, supporting them against the big guys, is far more of a positive step than simply abstaining from eating meat. But.. even if you do prefer to be vegetarian or vegan (or any variation), then buying mostly local stuff from smaller producers is the best goal. (though even that is not 100%, I remember a study showing that your average apple from NY actually take more energy to get to market than your average banana, but that is a tangent to this discussion)

Now, I would never say that an animal is evil because it kills, but I do think that predator animals cause significant suffering, and if there were some way to get rid of all predator species without substantially disrupting ecosystems (I know that this is complicated, of course) I might do it. The harm caused to those animals in the short term would be outweighed by the reduction in suffering to all others in the long term.

Well, there you go anthropomorphizing. I believe that we, as humans, are obligated to reduce suffering. I would argue this is partly because we are "spiritual beings", an atheist is probably going to say something like "we know better". The bottom line is that predators are not under this obligation, and that is very, very important. For you to say "I would eliminate all predator, if I could" leads me to ask "what gives you the right to make that determination". Its not just that "its complicated", its that the whole idea that some animals are superior to others, because some kill and others do not is just wrong. We, as humans, do have a moral obligation to reduce suffering. Animals do not. I would argue that reducing suffering does not in any way mean "do not kill", but that is a complicated question.

It is also why I said what I did about slaughter and habitat. Despite your claim that "nobody knows", the real truth is that animals are dying from habitat loss and pollution, not so much from people eating animals.

What I specifically said was, that nobody knows whether animals dying from habitat loss and pollution is a good thing. Stop twisting it into anything else. I am advocating that it might be, because the suffering those animals would have experienced on that habitat in the wild in the long run might justify removing that habitat.

Uh, no. And I have to say that thinking is as close to evil (in the result if not intent) as I have encountered. Those animals, all of them, have a fundamental right to exist. We have a right to live, also, but not to wantonly destroy things around us because we can. Also, we really don't understand anywhere near enough to know exactly which species we really need and those we do not. Sadly, we are going to find out, but the outcome is not guaranteed to be good, even if you are a "believer" there is no guarantee that this won't harm us all severely. (the end times might be near, the world might be going through another cycle of rebirth, etc., etc.) The current die off very well might wind up with our death as a species, perhaps evolving into something else and perhaps not even that. This is not esoteric fiction, though it is extreme, it is something I firmly believe can happen IF we don't take some serious steps to prevent it. On that, basically all serious scientists are agreed.. we do very much have the potential to destroy ourselves, and right now, do seem to be headed in that direction. (most also believe we will mitigate it in the end, but perhaps not without huge suffering).

Or, to put it another way:
If Bill Devall could not convince me, do you think you can? (and actually Bill Devall is one of those who would most definitely agree with me on habitat loss bit, though he absolutely does not eat animals).

Let's flip the question around -- if you think I have no chance of changing your perspective on this, then why are you participating at all? I am just as happy not to engage with you if you are coming into this from the perspective that this not a real debate, as I did not begin this conversation in an attempt to change your mind, so feel free to exit the conversation at your leisure. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but I don't much care whether you agree with me or not.

lol... no, that comment came from your basic dismissal and seeming insistence that the only way I could disagree was being misinformed. BUT, and this is a key point, I don't discuss issues to truly change people's ideas, at least not in big ways. I enter into discussions because I like hearing differing view points and I enjoy the challenge of communication. Also, it helps me to refine my thinking a great deal. This is not a "win or lose" proposition. It more of an "either we all win or we all lose" proposition. If we at least understand each other, we all win.

I was a student in northern CA when the spotted owl decision, some other major landmarks came about. I used to say that I expect the child of Dave Foreman (founder of Earth First!) and Bill Bailey (the one who challenged the use of the Lorax as a mandatory reading book in the Ukiah schools, owner of a chainsaw and logging supply company) to have different ideas about whether jobs or trees /habitat are more important. However, if they cannot at least agree on the cause and impact of logging, if they cannot agree on the basic terms, then we are lost. I would argue it is the same with that word you asked not to be mentioned. ( )

[Metsfanmax]

Ok, but this is part of the problem with folks misunderstanding. "politicians" and "well meaning individuals" constantly try and redefine accepted terms instead of just creating new ones. That makes old terms, and anything using those old terms either easily misunderstood, confusing or irrelevant. It does not really change the facts, but leads to a time of confusion, which is then used opportunistically by some folks. It also means that people wind up discussing the definition, instead of the base issue.. which, again, plays into the hands of "politicians" -- folks interested in putting forward their agenda, rather than just discerning the truth.

I did not misunderstand. The sense in which I have used the term sentience is how almost everyone who studies this issue defines it, and despite consulting a dictionary you still managed to misinterpret the issue. So while I am not going to disagree with your general point, I am going to object to who you are pointing it at.

Similarly, you have failed to correctly use the term anthromorphization, so I insist that you drop the lecturing about terminology.

My position is not that. My position is that animals are different.

I believe your point can be summarized as "it's acceptable to cause animals pain, let's just reduce their suffering to a minimum." The reason you think it is acceptable seems to be a combination of factors, but ultimately believing that animals exist in part for us to use.

To that I respond that not too long ago white people thought that black people existed for us to use. And often for the same faith-based reasons that you espouse.

Will respond to the rest later.

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, but this is part of the problem with folks misunderstanding. "politicians" and "well meaning individuals" constantly try and redefine accepted terms instead of just creating new ones. That makes old terms, and anything using those old terms either easily misunderstood, confusing or irrelevant. It does not really change the facts, but leads to a time of confusion, which is then used opportunistically by some folks. It also means that people wind up discussing the definition, instead of the base issue.. which, again, plays into the hands of "politicians" -- folks interested in putting forward their agenda, rather than just discerning the truth.

I did not misunderstand. The sense in which I have used the term sentience is how almost everyone who studies this issue defines it, and despite consulting a dictionary you still managed to misinterpret the issue. So while I am not going to disagree with your general point, I am going to object to who you are pointing it at.

Then you are going to have to provide some serious evidence. And, mind you the reason I cited Websters is because it is one of the most liberal when it comes to definitions. Webster believed that dictionaries should reflect common usage. All it takes is for someone to cite it a few times and it becomes a new definition.

When I mean "proof", I mean not the kind of opinion piece you presented, I mean show me the actual citations of documents (that are public.. else quote the pertinent parts). Because your definition absolutely does not match that used by those I know and know of in the field. In fact, about the only ones who do are the PETA , Bill Devall Aficionado, types-- and most of them study things like philosophy, not biology or behavioral science or any other real scientific students. (if they do, its often to study plants).

Similarly, you have failed to correctly use the term anthromorphization, so I insist that you drop the lecturing about terminology.

Yes, just as soon as you stop insisting you have a hold on the dictionary. Also, please provide actual references, as I did, not just your own personal opinion.

My position is not that. My position is that animals are different.

I believe your point can be summarized as "it's acceptable to cause animals pain, let's just reduce their suffering to a minimum."

No, pl;ease stop trying to frame what I said into what you think I "must" be thinking. [/quote]

The reason you think it is acceptable seems to be a combination of factors, but ultimately believing that animals exist in part for us to use.

I believe humans have an obligation to avoid causing pain when possible. Animals do not have any such teaching or obligation. That is part of what distinguishes us from human.

To that I respond that not too long ago white people thought that black people existed for us to use. And often for the same faith-based reasons that you espouse.

I see, so is this where I am supposed to say that this means you are saying you just equivocated black people with animals. I find that repugnant.

Now, to get back to what I actually said, as opposed to what you are trying to claim I am saying.

Will respond to the rest later.

Please read before you do. You might reread what Tzor said as well.

And, remember, your PhD is meaningless here.. not only because you have absolutely no idea of my education, experience or anything, but also because if you cannot explain your lofty ideas to people who actually disagree... you have not learned much. Actually change that to explain respectfully.

[Metsfanmax]

Then you are going to have to provide some serious evidence.

No. This has nothing to do with a real debate about the definition of sentience, it has to do with you just not even understanding your own argument. Let's reflect. This started when you said:

Cows are not sentient, by definition.

OK, so what was your definition of sentient? From Webster's, you provided

(1) responsive to or conscious of sense impressions; (2) aware; (3) finely sensitive in perception or feeling.

I don't disagree with any of these definitions. The debate came up because you said that cows are not sentient. I reacted strongly to this because cows are so obviously sentient by these definitions, so I could only conclude that you didn't understand the definitions you provided.

So where did this go wrong? It went wrong when you said:

The issue here is really if we should change the accepted definition of "sentient", to include animals.

Wait, what? Does the definition you provided above mention anything about non-human animals, or even human animals? No. Indeed, by their definition the only thing that matters is awareness (to keep it simple). So how can I change the definition of sentient to "include animals" if it didn't exclude animals to begin with? If there is any debate at all, it is about whether non-human animals are aware. But you aren't even arguing that:

See, I am not arguing that fish/cows, etc cannot feel.

So the only thing I am left to conclude is that you don't understand the distinction between aware and self-aware. Awareness is merely having a subjective impression of one's environment or experiences. Self-awareness is a stronger property that describes the ability to recognize that the being itself is what is having those subjective impressions. I am only arguing now that cows have the former property, which is sentience. You're arguing that sentience is something else entirely, e.g.

But, to say that they have true sentience entails more than just having feelings of happiness, etc.

Now I could start delving into the literature if it were necessary, but it is not. (Furthermore, it would be dishonest -- I could show you papers saying that various non-human animals are sentient, but that would be an appeal to authority that wouldn't actually resolve the underlying confusion you have.) By your own provided definitions, true sentience only entails those things and nothing more. You are the one who is changing the definition of sentience to be something other than what it actually is, because for some arbitrary reason you don't think non-humans have it. Well, whatever it is you think they don't have, it's not got to do with sentience. And as long as you continue to insist otherwise, I can't make progress with you. I don't like hanging up debates on matters of definition, but this is clearly much more than that, because you are accusing me of unethical behavior here, and I'm not going to stand for that.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know if animals are "human" but they are clearly (for the most part) not "inhuman." Human beings are the best at being inhuman on many occasion.

I would agree.