Animal Rights Are all animals worthy of equal consideration?

[flyingsnail]

It might not be practical or even possible for us at this point to give certain animals much consideration, but that doesn't mean they're not worthy of equal, or at least more, consideration.

My post focused on the possibility of giving all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration" because if it is not possible then whether or not we should do such a thing would have little relevance to our lives.

My post also focused on the colloquial notion of the term often used in the veg community, the philosophic notion is more nuanced and there its the equal consideration of interests that is key. But what interests an animal has is, obviously, linked to its particular capacities. So, for example, if an animal has no notion of self, past, future, etc its not clear in what sense it can have interest in its existence.

That will lead to less dependence on pesticides, I would think, and lots of other changes as well.

You may be able to reduce the use of some insects, etc........but its unclear how you could eliminate it. Plants have a very symbiotic relationship with insects and even if you could genetically engineer crops to eliminate this relationship some insects are so small they couldn't be kept out of some sort of indoor mega farm. And the tiny insects vastly outnumber the larger ones.

 

[beancounter]

So, how do you like to prepare oysters? Garlic and olive oil? Lemon juice. Or do you justify swallow them raw?

You can easily survive on a veg*n diet. You will not starve or become malnourished.

I'm not even sure how one could, in principle, give all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration". We have no choice but to decide which animals are worthy of rights and which are not, the only alternative would seem to be starvation.

 

[prioritarian]

So, how do you like to prepare oysters? Garlic and olive oil? Lemon juice. Or do you justify swallow them raw?

Dogmatic belief systems often engender paranoia...

 

[beancounter]

Dogmatic belief systems often engender paranoia...

It's a fundamental philosophical difference, which will never see eye to eye.

BTW, it's never a good idea to call a mod paranoid...even in a passive-agressive manner.

 

[prioritarian]

It's a fundamental philosophical difference, which will never see eye to eye.

!

BTW, it's never a good idea to call a mod paranoid...even in a passive-agressive manner.

If it turns out that flyingsnail is diana fleischman in internet drag I will apologize

 

[Second Summer]

My post focused on the possibility of giving all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration" because if it is not possible then whether or not we should do such a thing would have little relevance to our lives.

I suppose to some it seems like an academic distinction. However, as these new higher-yield technologies become available, we will hopefully soon be in a situation where accidentally less barbaric farming methods are both possible and preferred.

Also, why should a species' right to consideration be dependent on humans' current ability to abide by such rights?
Also, surely it's a good thing to be honest with ourselves? Why delude ourselves?

My post also focused on the colloquial notion of the term often used in the veg community, the philosophic notion is more nuanced and there its the equal consideration of interests that is key. But what interests an animal has is, obviously, linked to its particular capacities. So, for example, if an animal has no notion of self, past, future, etc its not clear in what sense it can have interest in its existence.

Which animals did you have in mind? How do you determine whether a certain animal has such notions? AFAIK, all animals have survival instincts, so in that sense they clearly have an innate interest in continued survival.

You may be able to reduce the use of some insects, etc........but its unclear how you could eliminate it. Plants have a very symbiotic relationship with insects and even if you could genetically engineer crops to eliminate this relationship some insects are so small they couldn't be kept out of some sort of indoor mega farm. And the tiny insects vastly outnumber the larger ones.

Still, it would be an improvement over previous farming methods, and it allows us to increase the range of animals who(se interests) can be considered. Our sphere of consideration grows and we become more compassionate.

 

[Clueless Git]

My post focused on the possibility of giving all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration" because if it is not possible then whether or not we should do such a thing would have little relevance to our lives.

This is the 'logic' of the "if we can't avoid killing germs when we bathe then we might as well kill xbillion cows/chickens/whatever per year also" line of omni-think.

My omni-troll sensors are twitching.

 

[Clueless Git]

Our sphere of consideration grows and we become more compassionate.

If compassion were a disease then meat would be the cure.

 

[Second Summer]

Except that most major animal groupings do not have nervous systems (prorifera, cnidarians, ctenophore, echinodermata). Only a single animal grouping (bilateria) has a nervous system and even among this grouping there are some animals without an intact nervous system. (Taxonomy is dynamic so I am purposefully avoiding using terms, such as, phyla or class.)

File:Metazoan Phylogenetic Tree.png - Wikimedia Commons

There is no evidence that a sponge, jelly fish, or sea squirt have more capability to suffer or be exploited than a potato plant. Why are many of these animals worthy of more consideration than plants or fungi?

Sea squirts (which are chordates), jelly fish (which are cnidarians), and echinodermata (star fish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers etc) have nervous systems:
Ascidiacea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jellyfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Echinoderm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Echinoderms have a simple radial nervous system that consists of a modified nerve net consisting of interconnecting neurons with no central brain, although some do possess ganglia.

 

[prioritarian]

Sea squirts (which are chordates), jelly fish (which are cnidarians), and echinodermata (star fish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers etc) have nervous systems:
Ascidiacea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jellyfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Echinoderm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sea squirts digest away their spinal cord, nerves and ganglia when they attach so despite being chordates they are definitively non-sentient (at least as we understand the word).

Nerve nets are comprised of dispersed neurons without centralization (cephalization) so they are not true nervous systems (hence the term nerve net). Plants also have dispersed endocrine cells that passively communicate chemical signals in response to environment cues. I think it would be a real stretch to consider an animals with a simple nerve net to be more aware than a tree.

 

[Second Summer]

Sea squirts digest away their spinal cord, nerves and ganglia when they attach so despite being chordates they are definitively non-sentient (at least as we understand the word).

They are strange, primitive little animals, but this is part of their lifecycle. We can't ignore the fact that in the stages prior to attaching they are still "intact", so I really don't think we can say the species is definitely non-sentient.

Nerve nets are comprised of dispersed neurons without centralization (cephalization) so they are not true nervous systems (hence the term nerve net).

I think what you are trying to say is that they are not central nervous systems. They are however still a type of nervous system: "The nerve net is the simplest form of a nervous system found in multicellular organisms." (Wikipedia)

Plants also have dispersed endocrine cells that passively communicate chemical signals in response to environment cues. I think it would be a real stretch to consider an animals with a simple nerve net to be more aware than a tree.

Signaling in plants and animals developed independently. Plants don't have neurons, and I would think the superiority of the neuron design is evident. Whether a tree or nerve net-based animal is more aware? Hard to say.

Is sentience the only factor we need to consider though?

 

[prioritarian]

They are strange, primitive little animals, but this is part of their lifecycle. We can't ignore the fact that in the stages prior to attaching they are still "intact", so I really don't think we can say the species is definitely non-sentient.

I think what you are trying to say is that they are not central nervous systems. They are however still a type of nervous system: "The nerve net is the simplest form of a nervous system found in multicellular organisms." (Wikipedia)

Signaling in plants and animals developed independently. Plants don't have neurons, and I would think the superiority of the neuron design is evident. Whether a tree or nerve net-based animal is more aware? Hard to say.

I agree that the sea squirt larvae might be minimally sentient but one could argue that their attached form is like a plant (e.g. a non-sentient mass of tissue that can propagate the species). So while I have no interest in eating sea squirts I don't regard them as being worthy of more consideration than plants.

I also don't think the superiority of a neuron is obvious. Plant cells are more "connected" than nerve nets (symplast). And while I don't believe plants are sentient the complexity of their stimulus-response and plant-plant communication is amazing.

Is sentience the only factor we need to consider though?

Not for me. For example, I believe self-awareness (e.g. the capacity to suffer) is even more important.

 

[flyingsnail]

This is the 'logic' of the "if we can't avoid killing germs when we bathe then we might as well kill xbillion cows/chickens/whatever per year also" line of omni-think.

Hmm....how is that? Nothing in my posts implies such a thing, in fact the opposite, since once you grant all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration" the sort of logic you refer to starts to make sense. That is, if you can't avoid killing thousands of animals each day why worry about killing one or two chickens a week? On the other hand if you don't give all animals equal consideration, as I've suggested, this logic doesn't work as the interests and capacities of the individual animals is the critical issue.

So, how do you like to prepare oysters? Garlic and olive oil? Lemon juice. Or do you justify swallow them raw?

I'm not sure why you're asking how I like to prepare oysters....but I've never prepared an oyster before.

 

[flyingsnail]

If it turns out that flyingsnail is diana fleischman in internet drag I will apologize

Now I get the question about oysters. But I'm the wrong sex and on the wrong continent.

we will hopefully soon be in a situation where accidentally less barbaric farming methods are both possible and preferred.

If society deemed it important, I can see how farming could do more to limit its impact on mammals but limiting the impact on insects would be very difficult and one has to ask, for what purpose? Are insects creatures with interests?

Also, why should a species' right to consideration be dependent on humans' current ability to abide by such rights?

Because, unless you're an idealist, rights are a legal construct and you can't grant rights to an identity when you can't in principle respect them. Well, I suppose you could, but it would have no real world application and would distract from the granting of rights to creatures that we would could respect.

Which animals did you have in mind? How do you determine whether a certain animal has such notions? AFAIK, all animals have survival instincts, so in that sense they clearly have an innate interest in continued survival.

I'm not sure what you mean by "survival instincts" but the vast majority of living things will try, the best they can, to preserve themselves. But if such actions are taken to imply that the living system has an interest in its existence then fungi, plants, etc would have such interests as well as animals.

In terms of knowing about the capacity of another species, you'd have to look at the physiology and behavior of the species in question. So, for example, if some animal has a very simple brain and has behavior that can be modeled without reference to any notion of self......then we have no reason to believe it has an interest in its existence.

 

[Clueless Git]

Hmm....how is that? Nothing in my posts implies such a thing ...

You should read your own posts again Snail.

My post focused on the possibility of giving all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration" because if it is not possible then whether or not we should do such a thing would have little relevance to our lives.

You are clearly using the logic that impossibility of achieving 100% reduces the relevance (to our own lives) of striving for 100%.

That is omni logic.

.. the interests and capacities of the individual animals is the critical issue.

The less the scope of interests and capacity of an individual then the less consideration that individual deserves?

Even if actual capacity remains equal then that makes those of us with greater spheres of interest deserving of more consideration and those of us who reduce their spheres of interest deserving of less.

That logic only means that with every living being we exclude from our personal sphere of 'deserving equal consideration' then the amount of equal consideration we, ourselves, deserve becomes that much less by default.

 

[prioritarian]

You are clearly using the logic that impossibility of achieving 100% reduces the relevance (to our own lives) of striving for 100%.

Huh???

I don't think ridding the world of infectious disease is possible but I sure as heck believe we should strive for 100%. I feel the same way about animal exploitation and suffering. I understand that we have a philosophical difference about veganism...but do you really think the "new welfarists" who work for MFA, COK, and FARM aren't striving for 100%.

 

[prioritarian]

If society deemed it important, I can see how farming could do more to limit its impact on mammals but limiting the impact on insects would be very difficult and one has to ask, for what purpose? Are insects creatures with interests?

Whether insects are creatures with interests is hugely important question because we kill so many of them growing the plants, legumes and grains we veg*ns eat. I personally don't think most insects matter as much as higher animals but I still think this is a debate that we vegans should be having.

Unfortunately, other than constant silly debates about honey, interest in potential insect suffering in the vegan community can be largely summed up by one word:

:crickets:

In fact, the only vegans that I know of who really worry about insects are utilitarians:

Do Bugs Feel Pain?

 

[flyingsnail]

You are clearly using the logic that impossibility of achieving 100% reduces the relevance (to our own lives) of striving for 100%.

As I said before, my point has nothing to do with this, instead I've been talking about whether it makes sense to give all animals "equal consideration". I've suggested that we cannot, in principle, given all animals "equal consideration" and that attempts to do so will trivialize the animal welfare/rights in the cases where we can do something.

I do think what you're calling "omni logic" does make some sense if you assume that all animals should be given equal consideration. While if you instead posit that animals should be given equal consideration of interests it doesn't follow since the interests of, for example, a cow are much different than a bee.

 

[das_nut]

Except that most major animal groupings do not have nervous systems (prorifera, cnidarians, ctenophore, echinodermata). Only a single animal grouping (bilateria) has a nervous system and even among this grouping there are some animals without an intact nervous system. (Taxonomy is dynamic so I am purposefully avoiding using terms, such as, phyla or class.)

File:Metazoan Phylogenetic Tree.png - Wikimedia Commons

There is no evidence that a sponge, jelly fish, or sea squirt have more capability to suffer or be exploited than a potato plant. Why are many of these animals worthy of more consideration than plants or fungi?

This is my reasoning exactly. If we're going to divide the line between what we can eat and what we can't eat based on sentience, we should logically follow this. Erring on the side of caution would be a good thing, but I'm not really worried that tap water has probably killed countless microscopic "animals".

 

[Clueless Git]

As I said before, my point has nothing to do with this ..

In the nicest way, Snail, I'm not sure that either of us has a clue what the other is talking about here.

(I'll take the rap for that. I'm as thick as two short planks in many ways and virtualy incomprehensible 90% of the time.)

I think your point is that there is a whole section of the animal kingdom that has little interest in living. That us giving them equal consideration makes little difference to their lives?

If that is what you are saying then I agree.

What I disagree with is that us giving that section of the animal kingdom equal consideration makes no difference to OUR lives.