Why is sentience an argument for animal advocates & vegans?

[Brian W]

Sentience is the ability to perceive the world, which is why many species can feel pain and suffer. But we can go a step further and refer to the kinds of experience an organism has. Humans have considerably more complex experiences in many ways and we can point to evidence for this. So it can be argued that while other species can feel pain, necessitating better welfare, only humans harbour the kind of multi-layered, narrative kinds of experience that we have. And it is the latter that we refer to when we are talking about rights to life and liberty.

We are constantly being surprised by how complex the experience of other creatures actually is but this is irrelevant. The right to live is equal in all species. Who decides that humans have more right to live than any other species? If anything, it can be argued that none of us have a right to live, that the very concept of "rights" is an arbitrary human invention.

 

[Graeme M]

Who decides that humans have more right to live than any other species? If anything, it can be argued that none of us have a right to live, that the very concept of "rights" is an arbitrary human invention.

Well, that's it in a nutshell. Nothing has rights, rights are a recent human invention. So we get to decide who or what is awarded rights. Just because another species is sentient, it doesn't follow that they "have" rights. Instead, they can only be awarded rights if we agree that's worth doing. So far, very few think we should. And there seems to be no knock-down argument for saying that we should. It's consistent, and it's just, to award rights to other species. But that is not a prima facie case for having to do so.

 

[bEt]

TW (Trigger warning): animal cruelty

Thank you for an explanation of where you are coming from.

Graem M. wrote, "Sentience is the ability to perceive the world, which is why many species can feel pain and suffer. But we can go a step further and refer to the kinds of experience an organism has. Humans have considerably more complex experiences in many ways and we can point to evidence for this. So it can be argued that while other species can feel pain, necessitating better welfare, only humans harbour the kind of multi-layered, narrative kinds of experience that we have. And it is the latter that we refer to when we are talking about rights to life and liberty."

I have recently looked for and found Leslie Cross's writings to be very enlightening and engaging. You can find some of them online, though many of them are on a website that is not ''https" or 'secure'.

Here is my first attempt at a clumsy interpretation of some of what I read from his publications:

I believe that Mr. Cross is recognizing that human reasoning and sentience is not equivalent to that of other animals. Humans do indeed have capacities that we don't see in a lizard or a minnow. But the reason we treat other animals better than they treat each other is not because they are our equals, but because we expect better of ourselves.

I wonder whether Graem M. feels that hunting honors animal welfare because the animal loosing its life was free up to the day of its death? This is a personal point of view. I choose to emphasize instead the fact that we have better options for exercising our higher natures. The cougar and coyote and other animals hunt their food without the capacity to understand that their prey too experiences terror, affection, exaltation, anger, and so on. But humans know better and we can choose to expect better of ourselves, and to hold ourselves to a higher standard as a result of our different capacities. We have reached a point where we can figure out how to feed ourselves in other ways.

I have a feeling I may not be making a lot of sense. If anyone would like to help in pointing out why, it would be welcome.

 

[Graeme M]

Graem M. seems to be addressing the question of hunting instead.

Well, not really... I was asking more generally about why sentience demands rights. Animal rights activists/advocates and to an extent many vegans argue that because other species may be sentient, then we have a duty to award them rights. So my question was posed in the context of any human/animal relations, farming included.

I choose to emphasize instead the fact that we have better options for exercising our higher natures, if we want to believe that we can and should do better than the cougar and coyote and other animals that hunt their food without the capacity to understand that their prey too experiences terror, affection, exaltation, anger, and so on.

This comes closer to providing a reason, IMHO. If we want to believe that humans can be noble because by our nature we can understand something about the world that other species cannot, then awarding other species rights (which really means identifying obligations we have to other species) seems more noble than were we not to. In the end, I think the idea of rights for sentient beings is not about them but about us.

 

[Sax]

only humans harbour the kind of multi-layered, narrative kinds of experience that we have. And it is the latter that we refer to when we are talking about rights to life and liberty.

It's not a coincidence the bar is set so only humans are able to clear it.

We can't know the subjective experience of others. There may be species with an even richer, deeper, more emotionally complex experience of the world than us. I wouldn't feel less worthy of rights if there were. I wouldn't feel that they could exploit me and inflict violence and death on me as long as they gave me a certain level of welfare along the way. Would you?

 

[silva]

Sentience is the ability to perceive the world, which is why many species can feel pain and suffer. But we can go a step further and refer to the kinds of experience an organism has. Humans have considerably more complex experiences in many ways and we can point to evidence for this. So it can be argued that while other species can feel pain, necessitating better welfare, only humans harbour the kind of multi-layered, narrative kinds of experience that we have. And it is the latter that we refer to when we are talking about rights to life and liberty.

This needs to be corrected to only some humans.....
It hasn't been long since we've extended rights to other races, to those with disablilities, to women......and we still fall very short.
Rights to life and liberty has historically only been applied to those in higher economic and social standings

We have no need to abuse animals, IMO,that's a big enough standard

 

[Graeme M]

I agree with the comments above. When I posed the question originally. I think I was making the same mistake others make when pondering this question. Many think that rights are attracted by the qualities that humans have, for example superior intelligence, abstract reasoning, capacity to reciprocate goodness, a soul, whatever it is that lets us think we are the special ones. That causes them to dismiss the idea of rights for other species regardless of their supposed sentience.

My opinion now though is that sentience doesn't really demand rights because of some natural property but more because how we treat other sentient species says much about us. Sentience can be strongly argued to favour a demand for welfare (because they can suffer), sentience less so as a claim for rights if all we are thinking about is the world according to other species (because they do not think like us). But because rights are about us and not them, sentience becomes a valid foundation for that discussion.

The reason why animal rights advocates rest on sentience as a valid basis for rights is because that frames why we should care enough to want to do better.

 

[VeganRachel]

Why is sentience a "go to" argument for animal advocates and vegans?​

Animal advocates and vegans advance the argument that animals are sentient and this means that they should be afforded a particular kind of regard. Often this means some kind of interest-based rights, but I get the feeling that for most, sentience just means that other animals feel stuff so we shouldn't be harming them.

The problem of harm is one of welfarism - that is, if we can use other animals without harming them (except for the killing part that is) there seems no real reason not to do so if there is a benefit to us from this. In the end I think the argument against this kind of animal use is from a personal sensitivity point of view - someone feels uncomfortable or sad that another animal is killed for food for example. For most people it probably is the case that as long as there is some level of good welfare, the use of animals in this way is fine.

The rights question seems to me to be a bit harder to work out. Why does "sentience" mean we should afford other animals rights? Do activists seriously believe that mice should have rights? Or, at least, the same rights as a cow? When is sentience sufficient to require rights?

This seems a rubbery question and I am not sure it reduces to any solid argument. No-one can really know what cows or mice think and how they feel about the world, so doesn't the case from sentience really just reduce to welfarism again? Why does it have to be more? Yes, I've read a few books about this but mostly it just comes down to someone's feeling that sentience demands a rights based recognition. Is there any empirical basis to this claim that doesn't simply reduce to welfarism?

What do you suggest as a better argument?.
One would agree that killing anything is a violent act. We teach children kindness and compassion and not to fight. Children have field trips to
pick apples and pumpkins, they are not taken to slaughterhouses, so parents are well aware of the damaging impact of witnessing the
slaughter of an animal, on their children's psyches. Yet children are casually taught to consume the dead. All life is sacred.

 

[VeganRachel]

I agree with the comments above. When I posed the question originally. I think I was making the same mistake others make when pondering this question. Many think that rights are attracted by the qualities that humans have, for example superior intelligence, abstract reasoning, capacity to reciprocate goodness, a soul, whatever it is that lets us think we are the special ones. That causes them to dismiss the idea of rights for other species regardless of their supposed sentience.

My opinion now though is that sentience doesn't really demand rights because of some natural property but more because how we treat other sentient species says much about us. Sentience can be strongly argued to favour a demand for welfare (because they can suffer), sentience less so as a claim for rights if all we are thinking about is the world according to other species (because they do not think like us). But because rights are about us and not them, sentience becomes a valid foundation for that discussion.

The reason why animal rights advocates rest on sentience as a valid basis for rights is because that frames why we should care enough to want to do better.

Speciesism as a result of the human ego, exists. We place ourselves above every other animal, but do not like it when others
refers to us, as animals, which we are. In fact, cannibals and mass murderers state that human flesh tastes like--pig.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

Why is sentience a "go to" argument for animal advocates and vegans?​

Animal advocates and vegans advance the argument that animals are sentient and this means that they should be afforded a particular kind of regard. Often this means some kind of interest-based rights, but I get the feeling that for most, sentience just means that other animals feel stuff so we shouldn't be harming them.

The problem of harm is one of welfarism - that is, if we can use other animals without harming them (except for the killing part that is) there seems no real reason not to do so if there is a benefit to us from this. In the end I think the argument against this kind of animal use is from a personal sensitivity point of view - someone feels uncomfortable or sad that another animal is killed for food for example. For most people it probably is the case that as long as there is some level of good welfare, the use of animals in this way is fine.

The rights question seems to me to be a bit harder to work out. Why does "sentience" mean we should afford other animals rights? Do activists seriously believe that mice should have rights? Or, at least, the same rights as a cow? When is sentience sufficient to require rights?

This seems a rubbery question and I am not sure it reduces to any solid argument. No-one can really know what cows or mice think and how they feel about the world, so doesn't the case from sentience really just reduce to welfarism again? Why does it have to be more? Yes, I've read a few books about this but mostly it just comes down to someone's feeling that sentience demands a rights based recognition. Is there any empirical basis to this claim that doesn't simply reduce to welfarism?

Briefly...
Since we accept sentience means mentally conscious and physically capable of feeling pain...

It is not logical to then add hierarchies of degrees of those faculties.

To try and assess intelligence as a basis for determination of who is more or less important...would lead to deciding mentally retarded humans were worth less than others.

To try and assess who is more or less sensitive to pain...same problem.

Sentience means...awareness mentally of environment having emotions wish for social interactions etc

The degree of it is irrelevant

As is the physical sensations faculty.

Central nervous system...brain ..are unique to all sentient beings.

Use...is the issue that remains to dismiss any notion of weldarism being acceptable.

To use own a sentient being is ethically wrong no matter how nice the guilded cage we assess is...it is not for others to decide if the cage is nice or not to justify ownership

Slaves nicely dressed housed and fed could be said to be welfarism well treated...

Freedom from ownership is the only RIGHT all sentient beings deserve.

Anything else is patronising arrogant and unjust.

 

[Graeme M]

Sentience means...awareness mentally of environment having emotions wish for social interactions etc

The degree of it is irrelevant

As is the physical sensations faculty.

Central nervous system...brain ..are unique to all sentient beings.

Use...is the issue that remains to dismiss any notion of weldarism being acceptable.

To use own a sentient being is ethically wrong no matter how nice the guilded cage we assess is...it is not for others to decide if the cage is nice or not to justify ownership

Slaves nicely dressed housed and fed could be said to be welfarism well treated...

Freedom from ownership is the only RIGHT all sentient beings deserve.

Anything else is patronising arrogant and unjust.

I haven't seen this comment before, must have missed it. I guess the question of what animals are sentient might be relevant, I mean is an oyster sentient on this sort of definition? "CNS... Brain".

But more to the point, @Vegan Dogs are you saying that veganism is only concerned with the problem of animals being owned? I have said elsewhere that veganism requires an obligation, a moral duty, to be concerned about both treating animals (including humans) as property AND treating them well, so welfare seems as much a moral duty as freedom.