3 ms·

As a vegetarian, I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw the line at the complexity of an organiams's nervous system. That's about the closest standard we can

As a vegetarian, I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw the line at the complexity of an organiams's nervous system. That's about the closest standard we can use to estimate so-called "sentience". It does become difficult when you look at organisms with more minimal nervous systems, like very small insects. I personally avoid unnecessary death of insects most of the time, however I will kill ants and cockroaches if they intrude into my home. I'm not entirely sure if this makes me a hypocrite. I suspect it might, since ants and cockroaches may be capable of feeling pain and perhaps even emotions.

bane 12y ago
> That's about the closest standard we can use to estimate so-called "sentience". The problem is that choosing "sentience" as the line is also entirely arbitrary. Sentience at best is poorly defined and almost impossible to prove or disprove about just about anything. It's understood as an intuitive concept, but sentience, consciousness and similar terms have defied solid definition for centuries. For example, it's a trivial exercise to demonstrate that a mountain might be sentient, but have qualities about itself that cloud our understanding of its sentience. As more and is understood by both AI and Cognitive Science communities, the ideas of consciousness and sentience are being better understood as perhaps just emergent phenomena and not underpinned by any spiritual or moral reasoning -- i.e. the concepts of sentience, and similar phenomena, may actually go away altogether and be tossed in with the pile of falsely observed ideas, like luminiferous aether, chi and humorism.
- meowface 12y ago
  I agree that consciousness and sentience are likely just emergent phenomena, but that doesn't necessarily make them any less "real". Consciousness and awareness are already used as a determining factor of life and whether it is ethical to kill an organism. For example, look at the case of a brain dead hospital patient. Most people would not say it is unethical to take them off of life support even if it's basically equivalent to killing them. Even if sentience is "artificial" in the sense that it's merely a property large networks of neurons display, it's still a significant notion because it allows us to experience, or at least feel like we are experiencing, sensation and subjectiveness. And I think it's fair to apply that same reasoning to non-human animals, though obviously it is difficult to determine with certainty since you can't obtain the full subjective experience of a different species.
  - NhanH 12y ago
    Even if the animal is sentinel and can feel pain, what's the problem of killing and eating them? The reason certain behaviours are considered moral/ ethical and are set as a standard is to make sure we (human) can have a reasonable life among one another, and not because the behaviour itself is intrinsically good. A lot of the time, something is immoral because it leads us into a rat race with no winner. I think the main point I'm trying to make is that I'd love to see a concrete philosophical explanation on many of vegan-related stuffs. But instead, most of the time it's just pseudoscience and empty big words :(.
    - meowface 12y ago
      Are you suggesting that morality has no purpose other than to provide a civilized society? That's one view on morality, but it's not that common nowadays. To suggest that you shouldn't harm a neighbor solely so that others won't harm you is a very selfish proposition. This is an anemic view on morality and altruism in any modern society. From an evolutionary standpoint, altruism and morality serve merely as constructs and contracts to enable a functioning society, but from a psychological standpoint they're something far greater. >The reason certain behaviours are considered moral/ ethical and are set as a standard is to make sure we (human) can have a reasonable life among one another, and not because the behaviour itself is intrinsically good. Ok, then what happens if you decide a certain person or certain group no longer reasonably belongs in the category of "one another"? For example, how some Sunnis view Shiites, and how Hutus view Tutsis. That group is no longer seen as a vital part of civilization and can be treated in any way at all, because behavior cannot be intrinsically good or bad. >I think the main point I'm trying to make is that I'd love to see a concrete philosophical explanation on many of vegan-related stuffs. If you want one example of such a philosophical explanation, look at utilitarianism. There are countless other moral philosophies which can be used to argue that "intrinsically good" behavior is a thing to strive for, even if it may be applied with certain nuances. It may be debatable whether moral vegetarianism actually has the desired effect of a utilitarian standpoint (not eating meat may not necessarily reduce the number of animals killed each year for food), but it is ludicrous to argue that morality plays no role in a vegetarian or vegan's desired end goal of reducing animal suffering and death.

bane 12y ago

> That's about the closest standard we can use to estimate so-called "sentience". The problem is that choosing "sentience" as the line is also entirely arbitrary. Sentience at best is poorly defined and almost impossible to prove or disprove about just about anything. It's understood as an intuitive concept, but sentience, consciousness and similar terms have defied solid definition for centuries. For example, it's a trivial exercise to demonstrate that a mountain might be sentient, but have qualities about itself that cloud our understanding of its sentience. As more and is understood by both AI and Cognitive Science communities, the ideas of consciousness and sentience are being better understood as perhaps just emergent phenomena and not underpinned by any spiritual or moral reasoning -- i.e. the concepts of sentience, and similar phenomena, may actually go away altogether and be tossed in with the pile of falsely observed ideas, like luminiferous aether, chi and humorism.

meowface 12y ago
I agree that consciousness and sentience are likely just emergent phenomena, but that doesn't necessarily make them any less "real". Consciousness and awareness are already used as a determining factor of life and whether it is ethical to kill an organism. For example, look at the case of a brain dead hospital patient. Most people would not say it is unethical to take them off of life support even if it's basically equivalent to killing them. Even if sentience is "artificial" in the sense that it's merely a property large networks of neurons display, it's still a significant notion because it allows us to experience, or at least feel like we are experiencing, sensation and subjectiveness. And I think it's fair to apply that same reasoning to non-human animals, though obviously it is difficult to determine with certainty since you can't obtain the full subjective experience of a different species.
- NhanH 12y ago
  Even if the animal is sentinel and can feel pain, what's the problem of killing and eating them? The reason certain behaviours are considered moral/ ethical and are set as a standard is to make sure we (human) can have a reasonable life among one another, and not because the behaviour itself is intrinsically good. A lot of the time, something is immoral because it leads us into a rat race with no winner. I think the main point I'm trying to make is that I'd love to see a concrete philosophical explanation on many of vegan-related stuffs. But instead, most of the time it's just pseudoscience and empty big words :(.
  - meowface 12y ago
    Are you suggesting that morality has no purpose other than to provide a civilized society? That's one view on morality, but it's not that common nowadays. To suggest that you shouldn't harm a neighbor solely so that others won't harm you is a very selfish proposition. This is an anemic view on morality and altruism in any modern society. From an evolutionary standpoint, altruism and morality serve merely as constructs and contracts to enable a functioning society, but from a psychological standpoint they're something far greater. >The reason certain behaviours are considered moral/ ethical and are set as a standard is to make sure we (human) can have a reasonable life among one another, and not because the behaviour itself is intrinsically good. Ok, then what happens if you decide a certain person or certain group no longer reasonably belongs in the category of "one another"? For example, how some Sunnis view Shiites, and how Hutus view Tutsis. That group is no longer seen as a vital part of civilization and can be treated in any way at all, because behavior cannot be intrinsically good or bad. >I think the main point I'm trying to make is that I'd love to see a concrete philosophical explanation on many of vegan-related stuffs. If you want one example of such a philosophical explanation, look at utilitarianism. There are countless other moral philosophies which can be used to argue that "intrinsically good" behavior is a thing to strive for, even if it may be applied with certain nuances. It may be debatable whether moral vegetarianism actually has the desired effect of a utilitarian standpoint (not eating meat may not necessarily reduce the number of animals killed each year for food), but it is ludicrous to argue that morality plays no role in a vegetarian or vegan's desired end goal of reducing animal suffering and death.