2 ms·

Forgive what might be a bit of a nitpick: there's really no question whether dogs are conscious. Like us, they have brains, show every sign of being capable of

Forgive what might be a bit of a nitpick: there's really no question whether dogs are conscious. Like us, they have brains, show every sign of being capable of joy and suffering, and respond to anaesthetics. You'd have to do a lot of acrobatics to make a case for dogs not being conscious. We all know this, it's why we answer the question of Is it acceptable to torture dogs? with No, of course not. Someone who believes dogs lack consciousness would presumably answer not with Yes, but with What do you mean, 'torture' a dog? You can no more torture a dog than you can torture a glass of water! From what I've read, Descartes and his disciples held exactly that view (I don't have an ironclad source for this). They mistreated dogs awfully, saying that the dog might appear to be suffering, but that it wasn't truly capable of suffering on account of it not being a human.

tsimionescu 6y ago
Well, given that we don't have a complete 'technical' definition of consciousness, I don't think it's unfair to say that it can still be argued whether dogs have consciousness in the same sense that humans do, even though no one would argue that it's OK to torture a dog. For example, even some of the simplest animals show recognizable signs of suffering when hurt (writhing, certain stress hormones, avoidance, etc.). Even plants show some signs of stress when hurt, and avoidance of the area where that happened. Should we conclude from that plants and all animals are conscious in the same sense that we are? If they are not, how should we interpret these signs? Is there a spectrum of consciousness? Or are there 2 separate properties, 1 related to certain complex analyses of stimuli that is essentially the same at least in all animals, from nematodes to humans, and 2 that is specific to humans, that has to do with constructing an entire mental world that is a model of the external world, or with something else entirely?
sjwright 6y ago
The only evidence that we have that humans have the sensation of consciousness is our own experience and the assumption that we're not special. Dogs might share with us this sensation of consciousness, or a less crisp sensation, or none at all. We have no way of knowing. Personally I think it's appropriate to behave as though they have the sensation of consciousness even as we concede the gap in our knowledge. And even if we didn't go that far, quite frankly I think the distress caused to humans by the appearance of distress caused to dogs is sufficient reason to not torture dogs. On the other hand, if I'm asked about factory farming of cows and chickens, the question I ask myself is "would I prefer if this chicken had a short, uneventful and (by human standards) meaningless life or if it never existed in the first place" and I'm unconvinced that either option can be confidently declared preferable.

tsimionescu 6y ago

Well, given that we don't have a complete 'technical' definition of consciousness, I don't think it's unfair to say that it can still be argued whether dogs have consciousness in the same sense that humans do, even though no one would argue that it's OK to torture a dog. For example, even some of the simplest animals show recognizable signs of suffering when hurt (writhing, certain stress hormones, avoidance, etc.). Even plants show some signs of stress when hurt, and avoidance of the area where that happened. Should we conclude from that plants and all animals are conscious in the same sense that we are? If they are not, how should we interpret these signs? Is there a spectrum of consciousness? Or are there 2 separate properties, 1 related to certain complex analyses of stimuli that is essentially the same at least in all animals, from nematodes to humans, and 2 that is specific to humans, that has to do with constructing an entire mental world that is a model of the external world, or with something else entirely?

sjwright 6y ago

The only evidence that we have that humans have the sensation of consciousness is our own experience and the assumption that we're not special. Dogs might share with us this sensation of consciousness, or a less crisp sensation, or none at all. We have no way of knowing. Personally I think it's appropriate to behave as though they have the sensation of consciousness even as we concede the gap in our knowledge. And even if we didn't go that far, quite frankly I think the distress caused to humans by the appearance of distress caused to dogs is sufficient reason to not torture dogs. On the other hand, if I'm asked about factory farming of cows and chickens, the question I ask myself is "would I prefer if this chicken had a short, uneventful and (by human standards) meaningless life or if it never existed in the first place" and I'm unconvinced that either option can be confidently declared preferable.