3 ms·

Of course they do else they would not avoid things that damage them physically. Even amoebas "feel" pain. The important thing is not if something feels pain, b

Of course they do else they would not avoid things that damage them physically. Even amoebas "feel" pain. The important thing is not if something feels pain, but where we draw the line in regards if an animal's pain is more important than our pleasure. It does not take much human pleasure to make a few hundred million ameoba suffer, while it had better be pretty large to make a chimp suffer [1]. 1. I am using pleasure here as shorthand for anything desired or beneficial for humans.

misja111 9y ago
I don't see any rational ground to make the suffering of an amoeba a million times less relevant than the suffering of a single chimp. Of course there is the irrational ground that chimps look similar to us and therefore we find it unpleasant to think about the fact that they are suffering. So in the end it is all about our pleasure and nothing else. The tradeoff is between the amount our pleasure we get and for which it is unavoidable that the animal suffers, against the amount of our pleasure it costs because we feel sympathy for this particular animal race.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- robinduckett 9y ago
  It wouldn't matter, if amoebas were microscopic copies of chimps, it would still be fairly easy for us to make millions of them suffer just by stepping on them with boots on, would it not be significantly harder to cause the suffering of a chimp without significant personal injury or forethought, considering your average chimp is a wild animal?
- danieltillett 9y ago
  There is none, but that doesn't change that we need to make this decision. Your body kills millions on amoeba every day just to stay alive. Ultimately the tradeoff between human pleasure and animal suffering is arbitrary and set by society and personal preference. The only reason I chose chimps is I rather like them so it would take a lot for me to hurt one. Equally, I don't like Bullrouts [1] (having been poisoned by one) and I would not be upset if they were all to die a slow and painful death. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrout https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrout
  - pessimizer 9y ago
    I think the only problem with that criterion is that it doesn't work for Azerbaijanis and Armenians.
bjoli 9y ago
You confuse pain (which is a conscious feeling) with the response to potentially damaging stimuli. If you burn your hand, your body reacts before you become aware of the pain. That is what the discussion about pain. Amoebas don't have the consciousness to experience pain, because they lack the higher brain functions involved
- grinsekatze 9y ago
  >Amoebas don't have the consciousness to experience pain, because they lack the higher brain functions involved ... this is a belief, not a fact. The reality is: we have no idea.
  - bjoli 9y ago
    The reality is: we can make an educated guess. Even though consciousness is not understood, it seems to require complex brain functions. I think the important part here is making a clear distinction between reactions to noxious stimuli and the actual conscious experience of pain. That is where the discussion is. The fact that something reacts to noxious stimuli (like amooebas sometimes do) is not a reason enough for moral consideration.

misja111 9y ago

I don't see any rational ground to make the suffering of an amoeba a million times less relevant than the suffering of a single chimp. Of course there is the irrational ground that chimps look similar to us and therefore we find it unpleasant to think about the fact that they are suffering. So in the end it is all about our pleasure and nothing else. The tradeoff is between the amount our pleasure we get and for which it is unavoidable that the animal suffers, against the amount of our pleasure it costs because we feel sympathy for this particular animal race.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
robinduckett 9y ago
It wouldn't matter, if amoebas were microscopic copies of chimps, it would still be fairly easy for us to make millions of them suffer just by stepping on them with boots on, would it not be significantly harder to cause the suffering of a chimp without significant personal injury or forethought, considering your average chimp is a wild animal?
danieltillett 9y ago
There is none, but that doesn't change that we need to make this decision. Your body kills millions on amoeba every day just to stay alive. Ultimately the tradeoff between human pleasure and animal suffering is arbitrary and set by society and personal preference. The only reason I chose chimps is I rather like them so it would take a lot for me to hurt one. Equally, I don't like Bullrouts [1] (having been poisoned by one) and I would not be upset if they were all to die a slow and painful death. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrout https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrout
- pessimizer 9y ago
  I think the only problem with that criterion is that it doesn't work for Azerbaijanis and Armenians.

bjoli 9y ago

You confuse pain (which is a conscious feeling) with the response to potentially damaging stimuli. If you burn your hand, your body reacts before you become aware of the pain. That is what the discussion about pain. Amoebas don't have the consciousness to experience pain, because they lack the higher brain functions involved

grinsekatze 9y ago
>Amoebas don't have the consciousness to experience pain, because they lack the higher brain functions involved ... this is a belief, not a fact. The reality is: we have no idea.
- bjoli 9y ago
  The reality is: we can make an educated guess. Even though consciousness is not understood, it seems to require complex brain functions. I think the important part here is making a clear distinction between reactions to noxious stimuli and the actual conscious experience of pain. That is where the discussion is. The fact that something reacts to noxious stimuli (like amooebas sometimes do) is not a reason enough for moral consideration.