Animal Rights Is sentience all that matters?

Second Summer

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Reaction score
8,632
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
Here's a thought experiment:

Let's say one day in the future, a human space mission discovered extraterrestrial life resembling non-human animals on some distant, godforsaken ice-and-rock planet.

Assuming there were enough of the creatures that they probably wouldn't go extinct immediately, is sentience all that matters when deciding how to treat the creatures?

What is sentience anyway? How do we detect it? Or are there other, perhaps easier-to-detect qualities we should look at?
 
Let's say one day in the future, a human space mission discovered extraterrestrial life resembling non-human animals on some distant, godforsaken ice-and-rock planet.

Assuming there were enough of the creatures that they probably wouldn't go extinct immediately, is sentience all that matters when deciding how to treat the creatures?
I think, when it comes to an alien species or domestic species, sentience is all that matters but determining whether an alien species is sentient would be difficult because we lack a common ancestry and they can be dramatically different than us.

What is sentience anyway? How do we detect it? Or are there other, perhaps easier-to-detect qualities we should look at?
Sentience is the ability to experience the world subjectively and as such a necessary condition for the ability to suffer. We have no good way to detect sentience in a general way, all we can do is look for behavioral clues, rely on neuroimagine, and make anatomical comparisons. The first, behavior, I think is the least reliable since the same behavior can have divergent causes and we have the tendency to anthromophorize other animals behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom L.
No, sentience doesn't matter. Suffering doesn't matter.
Only existence matters.
Then how does one justify eating plants? Plants and fungus exist and are complex living entities. So then what makes the existence of a member of the animal kingdom more important?
 
"creature" isn't exactly a precise term. But yes, you do have to draw the line somewhere......so why draw a line around the entire animal kingdom and why should anybody care about it?
 
"creature" isn't exactly a precise term. But yes, you do have to draw the line somewhere......so why draw a line around the entire animal kingdom and why should anybody care about it?
This guy says it better than I can. Animals: Should We Care? - Q Ideas

" In The Bond, I argue that we have inborn instincts that give us a running start. We have an instinctive connection with other animals—a social impulse that draws us toward animals and toward a benevolent way of dealing with them.

We’re learning, more and more, that the mistreatment of animals has a corrosive effect on individuals and on society. There is a well-known link between animal cruelty and crimes against people. Factory farms don’t just spawn cruelty, but also dangerous food-borne pathogens that sicken tens of millions of consumers every year. Capturing wild animals and trading them like mere commodities—for food, the pet trade, or other purposes—also spreads diseases like SARS and avian influenza that can produce pandemics and threaten public health.

For all that sets humanity apart, animals remain “our companions in Creation”, to borrow a phrase from Pope Benedict XVI, bound up with us in the story of life on earth. We cannot be bystanders in the face of harsh and cruel treatment of the less powerful – and in this case, that means animals placed on this earth by God. In the end, wherever we humans find it in ourselves to help powerless and vulnerable creatures, we are both affirming their goodness and showing our own."
 
Sentience is one of the main things I consider when deciding on an action which might impact another living being... the other one being how the living being in question themselves impacts other living beings. Living beings in another planetary ecosystem could be hard to figure out, as their biology might be different from our own and they might not have what could definitely be called "neurons/nerves", "sense organs", "stress hormones", but I would be inclined to observe their behavior and go from there.

For example: biologists have long believed that "consciousness" resides (for lack of a better term) in the cerebral cortex of mammals and birds. Fishes have brains, but not a cerebral cortex, and have been thought by many not to be truly conscious.

Problem: I have observed learned behavior in fish kept in aquaria. How would any learned behavior be possible for an organism that was not conscious- that is, aware- of anything? Learned behavior must require not only awareness, but memory- and, I suppose, the ability to anticipate what might happen in a situation, probably some reasoning ability, a desire to welcome or avoid what might happen next...

I think, theoretically, an organism could have sense organs, behaviors which were purely reflexive and unvaried, and could also not be sentient. But even then I would often try to give them the benefit of the doubt (within limits- I have trouble believing that the white blood cells which prowl around my body, engulfing bacteria and destroying cancer cells as they arise, are sentient, although I'm happy to have them).
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
We have an instinctive connection with other animals—a social impulse that draws us toward animals and toward a benevolent way of dealing with them.
I've heard this claim before and I think if it were true then the abuse of animals would not be so common place. The treatment of animals is, I think, largely cultural....hence why the vast majority of cultures protect some animals while abusing others.

There is a well-known link between animal cruelty and crimes against people.
So well-known there is no citation. I would be surprised if this was in fact true, humans like other primates are very good at compartmentalization.

But none of what you quoted answers my question, namely, why draw a line around the entire animal kingdom? The word "animals" in common language typically just refers to mammals and there is good reason to believe mammals, as class, are sentient.
 
Problem: I have observed learned behavior in fish kept in aquaria. How would any learned behavior be possible for an organism that was not conscious- that is, aware- of anything? Learned behavior must require not only awareness, but memory- and, I suppose, the ability to anticipate
Why would learned behavior require awareness? There are many robots that can learn, in fact, a lot of consumer devices can learn as well...are they aware? All that is required of learning is that the organisms brain can change in response to environmental stimuli. Even a lot of what humans learn is unconscious, for example, you walk without thinking about the mechanics of walking yet walking is a learned behavior.
 
I've heard this claim before and I think if it were true then the abuse of animals would not be so common place. The treatment of animals is, I think, largely cultural....hence why the vast majority of cultures protect some animals while abusing others.


So well-known there is no citation. I would be surprised if this was in fact true, humans like other primates are very good at compartmentalization.

But none of what you quoted answers my question, namely, why draw a line around the entire animal kingdom? The word "animals" in common language typically just refers to mammals and there is good reason to believe mammals, as class, are sentient.
Interesting that ypu ask for citations when you rarely if ever post any yourself. Here you are.
Animal Cruelty and Human Violence | Cathy Kangas
"According to the Humane Society of the United States, researchers determined that between 71 percent and 83 percent of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet. 1 Another study found that in families under supervision for the physical abuse of their children, pet abuse was concurrent in 88 percent of the families. 2 In seven school shootings that took place across the country between 1997 and 2001, all boys involved had previously committed acts of animal cruelty. 3

Because of this growing evidence of a link between animal cruelty and violent crimes, those who abuse animals are now on the radar of law enforcement agencies, social workers, and veterinarians in states that have cross-reporting laws requiring these professionals to report cases of animal abuse."

---'-----------
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13dogfighting-t.html?pagewanted=all
"The connection between animal abuse and other criminal behaviors was recognized, of course, long before the evolution of the social sciences and institutions with which we now address such behaviors. In his famous series of 1751 engravings, “The Four Stages of Cruelty,” William Hogarth traced the life path of the fictional Tom Nero: Stage 1 depicts Tom as a boy, torturing a dog; Stage 4 shows Tom’s body, fresh from the gallows where he was hanged for murder, being dissected in an anatomical theater. And animal cruelty has long been recognized as a signature pathology of the most serious violent offenders. As a boy, Jeffrey Dahmer impaled the heads of cats and dogs on sticks; Theodore Bundy, implicated in the murders of some three dozen people, told of watching his grandfather torture animals; David Berkowitz, the “Son of Sam,” poisoned his mother’s parakeet.

But the intuitions that informed the narrative arc of Tom Nero are now being borne out by empirical research. A paper published in a psychiatry journal in 2004, “A Study of Firesetting and Animal Cruelty in Children: Family Influences and Adolescent Outcomes,” found that over a 10-year period, 6-to-12-year-old children who were described as being cruel to animals were more than twice as likely as other children in the study to be reported to juvenile authorities for a violent offense. In an October 2005 paper published in Journal of Community Health, a team of researchers conducting a study over seven years in 11 metropolitan areas determined that pet abuse was one of five factors that predicted who would begin other abusive behaviors. In a 1995 study, nearly a third of pet-owning victims of domestic abuse, meanwhile, reported that one or more of their children had killed or harmed a pet"
 
Why would learned behavior require awareness? There are many robots that can learn, in fact, a lot of consumer devices can learn as well...are they aware? All that is required of learning is that the organisms brain can change in response to environmental stimuli. Even a lot of what humans learn is unconscious, for example, you walk without thinking about the mechanics of walking yet walking is a learned behavior.
I wasn't talking about a machine. Machines are designed by their makers (in this case, us), and we can design certain functions which may approximate simple animal behaviors.

Again: how could an organism brain be able to "change in response to environmental stimuli" without remembering or being aware of anything? Living brains don't function the same way microprocessors and hard disks do.
 
or subconscious. Maybe it is a consciousness that we are not aware of.
A consciousness that we are not aware of....sounds a lot like a consciousness that doesn't exist.

Again: how could an organism brain be able to "change in response to environmental stimuli" without remembering or being aware of anything? Living brains don't function the same way microprocessors and hard disks do.
Brains and microprocessors have obvious differences but they both are computing apparatus. The fact that you can implement a robot that can respond to environmental stimuli without having anything like "awareness" means that awareness is not a necessary condition for responding to your environment. But, okay, lets just talk the brain. Learning in the brain occurs when connections between neurons become stronger and others weaker, a repeated connection between some stimuli and outcome will overtime strengthen the activated network of neurons. The process is entirely biochemical, at no point does learning in the brain require awareness of the behaviors being learned.
 
Interesting that ypu ask for citations when you rarely if ever post any yourself.
There is a difference between posting on a forum and writing an article, if I was writing an article for a publication I would included citations but not when I'm posting on a forum for fun.

Here you are.
Animal Cruelty and Human Violence | Cathy Kangas
"According to the Humane Society of the United States, researchers determined that between 71 percent and 83 percent of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet. 1 Another study found that in families under supervision for the physical abuse of their children, pet abuse was concurrent in 88 percent of the families. 2 In seven school shootings that took place across the country between 1997 and 2001, all boys involved had previously committed acts of animal cruelty.
This just cites a relationship between certain types of animal abuse and human violence, it doesn't support a causal link between abusing animals and human violence which is what you need if one is going to claim that reducing animal abuse will reduce human violence. The cited relationships can just as easily, and more realistically, be explained by a common cause, namely, the poor psychological health of the individuals inflicting the violence.

The other information you posted is about a statistically relationship....but not a causal connection.