3 ms·
This borders on solipsism. The same argument can be made about any human being. At the very least, we presume there is pain by observing the behavior of animals
by bobthechef 4y ago
This borders on solipsism. The same argument can be made about any human being. At the very least, we presume there is pain by observing the behavior of animals in response to stimuli and interpreting what we see analogically. An in light of certain reasonable assumptions (like "natura nihil frustra facit"), we can quickly rule out a host of preposterous interpretations to conclude that the sensation felt is painful. That
We don't need to factor into the moral calculus the possibility that no pain is felt since the most reasonable and rational conclusion is that infants do feel pain. What reason could there possibly be to believe that they don't that isn't some stretched exersize in special pleading and evasion? The baby is human!
- Morgawr 4y agoI think you're misunderstanding what the OP is talking about. They aren't defending the practice, just that it's not necessarily an obvious answer to a question that should not be asked. > the most reasonable and rational conclusion is that In the context of science, this statement is a very dangerous one to make. There's many many many many things that people thought were "reasonable and rational conclusions" that turned out to be completely wrong after some actual rational experimentation and application of the scientific method.