Is Moral Value Primarily Determined by Ability to Suffer?

[Jamie in Chile]

According to Jeremy Bentham in his 1879 publication An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" This came in the context of defending animal rights. The viewpoint that ability to suffer was the main (or even only) thing that mattered in determining rights was later popularized by Peter Singer in his 1975 book Animal Liberation, and, consequently, within the animal rights movement since then, although I've never been fully convinced that suffering and pleasure should be so dominant.

I was interested to hear the philosopher David Chalmers in a podcast talk about the ability to reason and be conscious and have sensory experiences, even in the absence of ability to suffer or feel pleasure, as having value and conferring moral status making it wrong to kill such a being. I'm intuitively inclined to agree with this viewpoint.

It's an interesting discussion that I recommend here.

https://soundcloud.com/80000-hours%2Fdavid-chalmers-nature-ethics-consciousness

The part of interest is an 18-minute segment of a 4hour+ podcast. You can listen to Chalmers in conversation with Rob Wiblin and Arden Koehler of 80,000 hours by joining at 2:38:07 and going to 2:56 where Arden says "move on". Where they use the terms "affect" and "valence" they refer to feelings/emotions (including pleasure and pain).

The debate about whether or not ability to reason and be conscious and have sensory experiences should take a similar weight to ability to suffer, or much less, in determining rights or value of a being does not really greatly impact core vegan/animal rights questions. For example, eating meat is bad either way. It would likely affect marginal cases. It might have more impact in determining rights or worth of non-mammals, including fish and insects, where the ability to determine how much pain they feel becomes less clear cut.

If nothing else, it's an intellectually stimulating discussion.

 

[beancounter]

The problem with the bolded, is that you start getting people who think it's OK to eat oysters.

According to Jeremy Bentham in his 1879 publication An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Do you see it as not OK to eat oysters and if so why?

(I would probably avoid oysters on the grounds of the typical benefit of the doubt argument, whether relating to suffering or consciousness as well as because I think it promotes animal rights better if you can just say you are vegetarian/vegan, without having to specify certain exceptions.)

 

[Nekodaiden]

Ugh, I started to listen to that clip (the one specified within the whole talk) and found the question of moral relevance based on "conscience states" itself morally repugnant. Man putting himself in a position to judge the "worth" (with the stakes being life or death) of another being - even humanoid(s) (mythical "zombies" or likewise mythical logic only "Vulcans") based on some value attached to whatever rating they give for their "conscious state".

Not sure how this relates to veganism or if it's just a stand alone philosophical question, but if it does relate to veganism it's sort of irrelevant to begin with. All dead flesh is already at a 0 conscious state.

 

[Lou]

Here in California, and so close to San Francisco, there is a vegan influencer who put together a very well thought out article on why eating oysters are vegan. You can find dozens of articles that claim that bivalves are vegan. I put a link to one below.(on the east coast there seem to be a similar movement regarding lobsters). And this also is very close to the BeGan thoughts that its ok to eat honey.

Colleen Patrick Geaudaux has a good podcast about the subject.

I think the basic idea is that we can't really know if oysters (or lobsters or crickets) have feelings. Well they can't have the kinds of feelings that we do. but they do respond to stimuli. So its possible they feel pain (or something like it). Until we know for sure - the should be off the menu.

It’s OK for Vegans to Eat Oysters

Last summer I visited a friend in San Francisco whom I hadn’t seen in a while. Normally in such cases, I must gently remind my host that I eat neither...

slate.com

 

[Lou]

The other thing is about where you draw lines. Right now we have a pretty clear biological line - don't eat animals. If you start making exceptions - where do you stop?

 

[Sax]

I'm just glad I never have to rank the moral value of other beings.

 

[beancounter]

Do you see it as not OK to eat oysters and if so why?

Well, first, oysters are animals, and vegetarians/vegans don't eat animals...

Second, I personally believe that all animals are entitled to their existence, whether they have the ability to suffer or not.

But what's more important, is that this litmus test for suffering can potentially put you on a slippery slope. Using such a philosophy, you could justify killing anyone or anything, just as long as you ensure that the subject doesn't suffer.

For example, I could sneak up behind you, and shoot you in the back of the head. You'd be dead before you knew what hit you, and thus wouldn't suffer... Sound good?

Of course, you could argue that humans are a "higher" form of animal, and so it's "different" with humans. But there are many examples throughout history where one group of humans regarded another group as sub human, and used that view to justify the slaughter of that other group.

So viewing oysters as "sub-animal" just doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

[Lou]

Another reason to keep oysters off the menu is that oysters do a lot of good for the environment. They are filter feeders and actually clean up the water where they live.

There is an argument that oyster farms are also environmentally beneficial. I think its the Chesapeake and the Puget Sound that oyster farms actually help clean up the water. BTW, 95% of the oysters sold in America come from Oyster Farms.

As far as the environment goes, I think a good argument is that if oyster farms are good for the environment than not harvesting oysters would even be better. But that is an environmental concern, not an ethical concern.

I just found out that in Animal Liberation, Peter Singer sanctioned eating oysters. However, in later editions he recanted.

one cannot with any confidence say that these creatures do feel pain, so one can equally have little confidence in saying that they do not feel pain.​

​

So that ties right back into the Bentham statement.

It’s OK for Vegans to Eat Oysters

Last summer I visited a friend in San Francisco whom I hadn’t seen in a while. Normally in such cases, I must gently remind my host that I eat neither...

slate.com

So maybe like Bees, oysters are just one of the gray areas. I am not a big fan of blurred lines but I'm also not a big fan of dogma. So it might just be up to each vegan to decide on their own. However if you don't want to think too much about it the clear cut and safe position is just that oysters are animals and therefore not to be exploited.

 

[Poppy]

Recently, I've begun to see that life is much more than just feelings and thoughts and have come to appreciate that those without feeling and thoughts are simply living in ways that are different than how I live. Do trees feel pain when they are chopped down? I don't know. But they often sprout shoots from their stumps, so they're still trying to live in some capacity. Is eating an oyster more wrong than chopping down a tree for a Christmas decoration? I wonder.

I haven't consumed animal products in any significant quantity in many years. But I waste paper, don't compost, and conform Mother Nature on my little plot of land to my wishes. I'm beginning to feel that I need to take much more care while I'm here.

 

[Lou]

Recently, I've begun to see that life is much more than just feelings and thoughts and have come to appreciate that those without feeling and thoughts are simply living in ways that are different than how I live. Do trees feel pain when they are chopped down? I don't know. But they often sprout shoots from their stumps, so they're still trying to live in some capacity. Is eating an oyster more wrong than chopping down a tree for a Christmas decoration? I wonder.

I haven't consumed animal products in any significant quantity in many years. But I waste paper, don't compost, and conform Mother Nature on my little plot of land to my wishes. I'm beginning to feel that I need to take much more care while I'm here.

I can't argue with not wasting paper. And composing. respecting mother nature is a good idea.

But those things are done for environmental reasons - not ethical reasons. (although some philosophers will argue that when it comes down to it everything is ethics - the benefit is to humanity).

Chopping down trees for Christmas is just wasteful (especially in the millions). and disrespectful to mother nature. and probably bad for the environment as well. But when you start assigning feelings and emotions to plants - Oh, that way madness lies. (OhMyGosh, I murdered scores of baby oats this morning, and last night I chopped up broccoli and put it in boiling water while it was still alive).

Btw, I just want to mention this before anyone else brings it up. The Secret Life of Plants has been completly debunked. NONE of the experiments have EVER been replicated. Even the authors finally admitted that they made the whole thing up.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I read the Slate article. I have seen it before.

This comment isn't right though. "what if we could find an animal that thrived in a factory-farm cage, one that subsisted on nutrients plucked from the air and that was insensate to the slaughterhouse blade? Even if that animal looked like a bunny rabbit crossed with a puppy, it would be A-OK to hack it into pieces for your dinner plate".

It seems to me quite wrong to put someone in a cage even if they do well there and don't mind it.

I also think painless slaughter cannot be justified either because killing is wrong in itself. If it is wrong in the human context, how can it be completely OK with an animal?

You could still possibly argue that the reason painless slaughter (even of a creature, whether human or not, that had no family or friends or anyone that cared) is bad is because it deprives the creature of future pleasures and sensory experiences and consciousness. I'm not saying that's my opinion though, if anything my opinion goes more towards the "just wrong to kill" or "just wrong to imprison" etc type of intuition.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

But those things are done for environmental reasons - not ethical reasons.

Going to go off on a tangent here, but since I started the thread, I'm going to say it's OK since at least I'm not derailing someone else's thread.

Is environmentalism really distinct from ethics though, or just a part of it? In the case of some of the things you mention, perhaps they are distinct (although I still not sure - plastics and rubbish dumps cause harm and some deaths to nature). But in the case of climate change and pollution, it's clear to me that environmental issues are ethical issues.

If you choose to take many long haul flights a year and drive 20,000 miles a year in a petrol car, are you not (if you have a good knowledge about global heating) choosing to inflict harm and suffering on humans and animals through climate change? If that's your choice, the effects of the climate change from those emissions added up over years and years will likely lead to the death of at least one animal (could be very many including insects and smaller creatures) and perhaps, for every 10 people that live like that, one human might die from climate change. So are the emissions not causing suffering and death, just more indirectly and in a hard to measure way. Just like eating meat is causing suffering and death.

I was speaking to someone in February, and he talked about his petrol cars, and he just said "I'm not really environmental". Because we've framed it as being green or eco, society has framed not cutting your carbon emissions while living in the rich world as acceptably not doing an optional positive thing (like choosing not to give to charity very much), rather than doing a bad thing. So people can continue to cause harm and suffering by working within the framework that being environmental is just an interest a minority of people have like being in a club or playing a sport or doing gardening rather than something related to trying to be a good or better person.

No wonder it's so easy for people to dismiss it.

What if we reframed it? What if people who considered whether or not to take a long haul flight to holiday in New Zealand, or whether or not to continue on with their petrol car, or whether or not to continue with gas heating for their large house or whether to replace it with an eco geothermal system....what if they thought more actively about the harm and suffering and death that they cause being much higher in one case vs another?

Of course, the down side of this way of thinking about is that you **** people off, create a backlash and so on. But the current, gentle way of framing it just isn't working, and we're running out of time. So how about we try speaking the truth?

 

[Lou]

Is environmentalism really distinct from ethics though, or just a part of it? In the case of some of the things you mention, perhaps they are distinct (although I still not sure - plastics and rubbish dumps cause harm and some deaths to nature). But in the case of climate change and pollution, it's clear to me that environmental issues are ethical issues.

not really a tangent. And as I mentioned in my post - there are philosophers who argue that when it comes down to it, everything is ethics.

My feeling is that you can be vegan for both ethical AND environmental reasons. and that when you do things like not waste paper or start a compost pile you can do those things for environmental AND ethical reasons. Are those reasons distinct? I think so but at some point, it probably does become hair-splitting.

 

[Poppy]

I can't argue with not wasting paper. And composing. respecting mother nature is a good idea.

A. But those things are done for environmental reasons - not ethical reasons. (although some philosophers will argue that when it comes down to it everything is ethics - the benefit is to humanity).

Chopping down trees for Christmas is just wasteful (especially in the millions). and disrespectful to mother nature. and probably bad for the environment as well. B. But when you start assigning feelings and emotions to plants - Oh, that way madness lies. (OhMyGosh, I murdered scores of baby oats this morning, and last night I chopped up broccoli and put it in boiling water while it was still alive).

Btw, I just want to mention this before anyone else brings it up. The Secret Life of Plants has been completly debunked. NONE of the experiments have EVER been replicated. Even the authors finally admitted that they made the whole thing up.

A - I think my point of view has changed - I may have at one time tried to reduce my consumption of paper products for "environmental" reasons, but it's different now. Now I want to reduce my consumption because it causes the destruction of trees which are homes to bugs, and grow moss, and alter the soil in which it grows to further sustain organisms beneath the surface...

B - The point I mean to make is that living things have intrinsic value. A tree, a daffodil, an oyster has value because it is a valuable part of the ecosystem whether or not it has feelings or emotions. Can we as a species survive without destroying anything living? It doesn't seem like it. But we do have the ability to try to choose as wisely as possible.

 

[Lou]

Now I want to reduce my consumption because it causes the destruction of trees which are homes to bugs, and grow moss, and alter the soil in which it grows to further sustain organisms beneath the surface...

B - The point I mean to make is that living things have intrinsic value. A tree, a daffodil, an oyster has value because it is a valuable part of the ecosystem whether or not it has feelings or emotions. Can we as a species survive without destroying anything living? It doesn't seem like it. But we do have the ability to try to choose as wisely as possible.

Probably I'm just splitting hairs, and it probably doesn't make much difference in the long run..... but

"A tree, a daffodil, an oyster has value because it is a valuable part of the ecosystem"

It seems to me to be an environmental reason.

 

[Hog]

The question about the morality of eating oysters is the most fascinating question I have seen on veganforum.org. The answer must be "42".

"So maybe like Bees, oysters are just one of the gray areas. I am not a big fan of blurred lines but I'm also not a big fan of dogma. So it might just be up to each vegan to decide on their own. However if you don't want to think too much about it the clear cut and safe position is just that oysters are animals and therefore not to be exploited." - Lou

I think Lou is on the right track in his train of thought as usual.

Sitting down and deciding what is right or wrong is hard work. Contemplating my motivation for taking a particular action is equally painful. I tell myself that I am vegan because I care about the animals and the environment. There are also some cold hearted reasons for being vegan as I will list below.

01. I will die early if I eat animal products.
02. My medical bills could be sky high by eating animal products.
03. There is nothing more grotesque than seeing flies and roaches enter my home for a free meal of animal products in the garbage can.
04. Going vegan is another excuse for eating at home. Eating at home saves money.
05. Viagra is expensive and it really does not fix the problem entirely. (I had to take Viagra to get my wife pregnant.)

Some of you are probably thinking too much information on reason #5.

Sincerely,

Hog

 

[Lou]

Sitting down and deciding what is right or wrong is hard work. Contemplating my motivation for taking a particular action is equally painful. I tell myself that I am vegan because I care about the animals and the environment. There are also some cold hearted reasons for being vegan as I will list below.

First off, thanks for the compliment.

"Sitting down and deciding what is right or wrong is hard work."
Is it tho? you are sitting down.
You can be sitting down and gazing at the stars, or watching your kids, or eating a meal by yourself.

"Contemplating my motivation for taking a particular action is equally painful."
Well, it shouldn't be painful. Maybe you just have to exercise those brain muscles more often. But I take your point. Weighing each and every decision you have to make each day would be maddening. I bet that is why they invented rules and regulations - so we wouldn't have to.

But sometimes we should think for ourselves. And make reasoned and informed decisions. Maybe not every day but once in a while (especially on election day). The thing about thinking and deciding for ourselves - it sometimes requires not just thinking but research. Maybe even discussion. And usually some critical thinking. All that stuff is hard. Sometimes that is what the dinner table is for. Or at work, a meeting should be about. Sometimes the Vegan Forum can provide a platform for that. I'm frequently impressed with how smart and knowledgable the people here are.

I think one thing almost every vegan has in common is the ability to think for ourselves. I think that is how we all got here. Although some vegans may decide to become vegan cause of someone they know or they like the shiny vegan badges they get to wear, almost every vegan has decided on their own. After they did the research. After the dinner table discussion.
And hopefully asking questions and receiving answers from other vegans like the ones here.

Personally I like this kind of philosophical discussion. I'm sort of built for it. Even when its splitting hairs or essentially meaningless I still enjoy the exercise. But not everyone does and that is why I like that that the vegan society provided us with a simple and short definition that provides guidance and in a sense our version of dogma.

Socrates was an extreme example but I think we can all find our own version of truth in the statement
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living

 

[Jamie in Chile]

A - I think my point of view has changed - I may have at one time tried to reduce my consumption of paper products for "environmental" reasons, but it's different now. Now I want to reduce my consumption because it causes the destruction of trees which are homes to bugs, and grow moss, and alter the soil in which it grows to further sustain organisms beneath the surface...

This is so true, and such an understated argument. My intuition is that a tree has value in itself anyway, but the argument that forests are a habitat for insects, birds and so on is a more robust, scientific, defensible argument.

And yet the fact remains that as much as I love your way of thinking, loads of chopped wood gets shipped to my house throughout autumn and winter, and burned. Now why is this?

Well, as far as I know these are not primary forest but managed plantations that might not otherwise exist. I use eucalyptus and according to my research, here in Chile they don't cut the trees down but cut them at the half way and regrow them, possibly limiting habitat loss (or even increasing habitat if the only reason the trees are grown there is commercial value, and otherwise the land would be cleared). But, even were those arguments not true, I would still buy wood.

It's because if I didn't use wood, I would use gas or heating oil or electricity, and according to my calculations/estimates, all these, through climate change, will cause more animal and human suffering than using wood. I can't get solar panels or a geothermal heater because I rent, so this is the least bad option.

Now, I would caution against worrying about paper usage, plastic or compost if you haven't yet seriously cut your carbon footprint. Because then you are focusing on smaller issues having ignored bigger ones. Aside from being vegan, the next most important things you can do to reduce animal suffering in this world is probably get renewable energy to your home somehow, avoid using a petrol and diesel car, avoid flying, become minimalist, talk to others about climate change, vote according to climate change, and become a climate change activist (that word can mean many things - it doesn't necessarily mean you have to be marching or taking direct action).

If you've already done all those things, and you are now moving on to worry about things like paper and plastic and compost, then you're a legend. But, if you are worrying about compost for ethical reasons but still have only grid electricity to your home, take flights, and do 8,000 miles a year in a petrol car, then you have your priorities all wrong.

I'll post a little more later time if I have time. This argument needs something else to back it up, but I have a meeting now.

The key point is that climate change is more important than other environmental or most other ethical issues.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I've finished my meeting, so I'll add the bit I didn't have time for. According to some very rough estimates, perhaps as many as 1 billion animals were killed in the Australia fires, an event which, without humanity's greenhouse gases, might never have happened or might have been a smaller event (hard to say).

A staggering 1 billion animals are now estimated dead in Australia’s fires

The number of kangaroos, koalas, and others killed keeps skyrocketing. Here’s where the eye-popping estimate comes from.

www.vox.com

To this, we can add the fact that this was just one event in one country. Climate change causes animals to die in many other ways, such as severe weather, habitat loss, and disease spread. We can also think about how many of the worst effects of climate change are deferred to later on, i.e. the impacts seen today are a minority of the impacts of the emissions of today.

Given this it seems reasonable to speculate that the number of animals killed by climate change is more than the human population of 7.8 billion. Perhaps it will be 10 billion or 100 billion, who knows. But it means that each person on Earth is likely responsible (whether per year, or in their whole lifetimes) for killing multiple animals with their carbon footprint alone....even vegans....because an eco-friendly vegan in a rich country earning a good salary has about the world average carbon footprint.....

So, I just mean this as a call for us to cut our carbon footprint to protect animal life and happiness. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty or defensive or feel the need to list what they've already done. I am as guilty as the rest...my carbon footprint is also somewhere near to the world average.....probably the same as the typical person on this forum....

I also realize some people don't like numerical analysis of things like suffering and death, and that is unpleasant to you...but it's done for the purpose of a call to action....we all have our different way of looking at things...personally I think if each person's carbon footprint truly does kill multiple animals (or even if it might) then illustrating/calculating that at heart is a call for vegan compassion. So we all need to continue to cut your carbon footprint (I know many of you have done a lot already) and continue to influence politicians and work colleagues and friends and family to join us....