Why is sentience an argument for animal advocates & vegans?

[Graeme M]

I'd forgotten about this thread. I still haven't really come to any conclusion about this. It seems the main argument is just that if an organism is sentient, we owe it a duty of care not to use it or hurt it or own it or exploit it etc. But I haven't found any compelling reasons why that's the case. It just seems to be something some people think. And most people don't. Which suggests, I suppose, that veganism is always going to be a minority viewpoint.

My own uncertaintly stems from my belief that animals (sentient beings) aren't anything particularly special. They really are just biological machines and the "what it is like" thing is just how it is for those machines to do the things they do. They come and they go and that's the way it is. I can understand why welfare is important, but I'm torn on this idea of rights. I suppose a rights-based approach to welfare might work as a way to generalise duties to animals in this regard, but the idea that sentience demands something more seems problematic to me. Gary Francioni once said to me that sentience is what it's all about and we do not owe any duty to the non-sentient. I agree, it's just that I don't think duties emerging from sentience necessarily extend to the kinds of rights we confer to other humans.

In the end it just comes down to what one thinks about other animals, not any kind of empirical reasoning.

Is anyone aware of a treatise that addresses why sentience demands rights that include such notions as a right to bodily autonomy, a right to not be commodified, wtc?

 

[Jon]

I think sentience is "top of the list" because sentience implies awareness of oneself and its surroundings. This covers many things other than just those two. They have emotions, love, sadness feel pain etc. and a host of other things that we are just becoming aware of. They are more like us than we thought. And we ourselves are only animals, we should not forget that. And because we think we're top of the tree doesn't mean we should abuse and run roughshod over all other animals. There is an old saying "Noblesse Oblige". It turns out that we are not as clever as some animals, they can do things we can't. I was watching Lis Bonin the other evening. She has a new series about how intelligent and clever animals are. The first episode is a real eye opener! Our nearest ancestors, Chimps, are cleverer than us in some things, numbers for one, everyone should watch it. But there will always be some who agree and some who don't. Education is the answer and I wonder if the media and powers that be will attempt to brainwash us about that as they do about other things!

 

[Graeme M]

I have found an interesting book that I think tackles the scope of my concerns. Looking forward to reading it:

Subhuman: The Moral Psychology of Human Attitudes to Animals

If you regularly teach or otherwise discuss issues of animal ethics, consider whether this experience is familiar to you: You spend time in class carefu...

ndpr.nd.edu

 

[Hog]

A lobster lacks sentience in the same way that a human experiences sentience. Their perception of the world is from the standpoint of a lobster and not a human. Nevertheless, their perception is complete and authentic from the standpoint of a lobster.

In my mind, animal rights and human rights are the same thing. Whatever we are willing to do to an animal, we are also willing to do to a human.

I will use myself as an example. I am the cause of genocide and human rights abuses around the world. I like to think I am a nice guy. But, am I really all that nice. I will give two examples of the things that I have done.

First, the United States entered Afghanistan as part of a war on terrorism. In the process, we enabled numerous human rights abuses against Afghans. We promoted a system of tyrannical warlords. This system is so tyrannical that it enabled the Taliban to regain control of the country. I never complained even once to my senator about the problem.

Second, humans really should not live in the desert lands in Arizona. The land is not capable of supporting tens of millions of people over the centuries. Yet, I run my air conditioner at full blast during the summer months and I drive my car long distances during most of the months. My actions are the direct cause of global warming. Global warming will cause sea levels to rise and could destroy the country of Bangladesh. In other words, I am responsible for genocide. I am not going out and actively killing people. Instead, I am causing famine and the destruction of cultures. Instead, I am going to cause a desperately poor third-world country to cease to exist.

Nobody wants actively cause a hog to suffer. Most of us just don't care if other people do the dirty work for us. Likewise, nobody likes to see an innocent baby die due to malnutrition in Bangledesh or Afghanistan. But, I just don't care enough to stop running my air conditioner during the summer to stop global warming. I just didn't care enough to write my senator a letter when we occupied Afghanistan.

 

[Jon]

Why is sentience a "go to" argument for animal advocates and vegans?​

Animal advocates and vegans advance the argument that animals are sentient and this means that they should be afforded a particular kind of regard. Often this means some kind of interest-based rights, but I get the feeling that for most, sentience just means that other animals feel stuff so we shouldn't be harming them.

The problem of harm is one of welfarism - that is, if we can use other animals without harming them (except for the killing part that is) there seems no real reason not to do so if there is a benefit to us from this. In the end I think the argument against this kind of animal use is from a personal sensitivity point of view - someone feels uncomfortable or sad that another animal is killed for food for example. For most people it probably is the case that as long as there is some level of good welfare, the use of animals in this way is fine.

The rights question seems to me to be a bit harder to work out. Why does "sentience" mean we should afford other animals rights? Do activists seriously believe that mice should have rights? Or, at least, the same rights as a cow? When is sentience sufficient to require rights?

This seems a rubbery question and I am not sure it reduces to any solid argument. No-one can really know what cows or mice think and how they feel about the world, so doesn't the case from sentience really just reduce to welfarism again? Why does it have to be more? Yes, I've read a few books about this but mostly it just comes down to someone's feeling that sentience demands a rights based recognition. Is there any empirical basis to this claim that doesn't simply reduce to welfarism?

"if we can use other animals without harming them (except for the killing part that is) there seems no real reason not to do so if there is a benefit to us from this." Thar is so wrong. We should never look at it from that angle. We have no right to to kill other creatures for our benefit, except in self defence and if there's no other way. There is no way we can use animals that does not harm them if it's something they would not do of their own accord in the wild. Race horses love running, but they would never do what we make them do in the wild unless running away from a predator. Race horse owners always use that excuse when they are criticised for the exhausting and sometimes dangerous positions they put the horses into. "They love running"! We cannot undo the past, but that doesn't mean we should keep on doing it today just because it's become a habit. Animals all over the world are put in a dangerous and difficult positions every day for our benefit and it's so wrong!

 

[Graeme M]

A lobster lacks sentience in the same way that a human experiences sentience. Their perception of the world is from the standpoint of a lobster and not a human. Nevertheless, their perception is complete and authentic from the standpoint of a lobster.

I agree with this. I tend to think that most animals are sentient, where sentience means aware of the world in a way that enables them to make choices about behaviours. From their point of view, there is something it is like to be them. This makes the idea of animal rights difficult, it seems to me. We can't reach the point where all animals are treated fairly and equitably; after all, who will stop driving their car so that bugs aren't squished on the windshield?

Rights and justice for other animals will always depend to an extent on our needs. The same applies to other humans - we don't believe we shouldn't harm other people when defending our country, so context counts for a lot. I rather feel that animal rights can't be disassociated from what humans need to do, and unfortunately there are a lot of us.

"if we can use other animals without harming them (except for the killing part that is) there seems no real reason not to do so if there is a benefit to us from this." Thar is so wrong. We should never look at it from that angle. We have no right to to kill other creatures for our benefit, except in self defence and if there's no other way.

And yet you presumably have no problems eating foods grown from the destruction of the environment and the killing of vast numbers of animals. It seems to be impossible to avoid harming and killing other animals. I would guess that humans cause the deaths of quadrillions of invertebrates each year because our needs trump theirs. Building houses, driving cars, mining the earth, producing food and so on. The idea that we don't have a "right" to do anything is just an idea and not a fact about things, I'm afraid. The only rights that exist are those we choose to create. If we don't choose to extend rights to food animals, then that's the way it is. The animals don't care.

To an extent, I am just playing devil's advocate here. My point is why does sentience demand some particular duty on our part? Sentience *might* include the capacity to experience pain and to suffer, which demands - perhaps - some duty of care on our part (though clearly we don't bother for invertebrates). But sentience as a general condition doesn't demand anything from us, so the question is why we should want to have some moral regard for other animals just because they are sentient. The animals do not know they are being used, being exploited or being cheated of a long life. All they are concerned by is suffering in the cases where they can experience such.

So welfare is all we need to worry about, empirically. The case for rights and freedom from exploitation, not so much. It's a sentimental claim, it seems to me.

EDIT: I just wanted to point out I am not trying to diss veganism here as I think it's a serious and desirable ethical attitude. I'm more musing over the grounds for the philosophical/ethical claim.

 

[Jon]

I agree with this. I tend to think that most animals are sentient, where sentience means aware of the world in a way that enables them to make choices about behaviours. From their point of view, there is something it is like to be them. This makes the idea of animal rights difficult, it seems to me. We can't reach the point where all animals are treated fairly and equitably; after all, who will stop driving their car so that bugs aren't squished on the windshield?

Rights and justice for other animals will always depend to an extent on our needs. The same applies to other humans - we don't believe we shouldn't harm other people when defending our country, so context counts for a lot. I rather feel that animal rights can't be disassociated from what humans need to do, and unfortunately there are a lot of us.


And yet you presumably have no problems eating foods grown from the destruction of the environment and the killing of vast numbers of animals. It seems to be impossible to avoid harming and killing other animals. I would guess that humans cause the deaths of quadrillions of invertebrates each year because our needs trump theirs. Building houses, driving cars, mining the earth, producing food and so on. The idea that we don't have a "right" to do anything is just an idea and not a fact about things, I'm afraid. The only rights that exist are those we choose to create. If we don't choose to extend rights to food animals, then that's the way it is. The animals don't care.

To an extent, I am just playing devil's advocate here. My point is why does sentience demand some particular duty on our part? Sentience *might* include the capacity to experience pain and to suffer, which demands - perhaps - some duty of care on our part (though clearly we don't bother for invertebrates). But sentience as a general condition doesn't demand anything from us, so the question is why we should want to have some moral regard for other animals just because they are sentient. The animals do not know they are being used, being exploited or being cheated of a long life. All they are concerned by is suffering in the cases where they can experience such.

So welfare is all we need to worry about, empirically. The case for rights and freedom from exploitation, not so much. It's a sentimental claim, it seems to me.

EDIT: I just wanted to point out I am not trying to diss veganism here as I think it's a serious and desirable ethical attitude. I'm more musing over the grounds for the philosophical/ethical claim.

I am only going to reply to the 1st sentence as this discussion could go on for ever. YES, I do have a problem with all that you say in that sentence. I have been vegan from birth and I'm 80yrs old in September. I was the 1st recognised vegan child at the time. My father was one of the three people that formed the Vegan Society. I try to buy sustainable products as much as I can and have never eaten any animal product. I sign every petition I come across about land management that affects the animals that live there. However, I am not a campaigner in the sense I go around telling everyone they should be vegan. It is not my place to do that. I believe everyone has the right to their views, even if I think they're wrong.

 

[Graeme M]

I am only going to reply to the 1st sentence as this discussion could go on for ever. YES, I do have a problem with all that you say in that sentence.

Congratulations on your lifelong commitment to treating other animals with moral concern. There aren't too many people in the world who can make such a claim.

In regard to that sentence, I am only pointing out that regardless of our intentions we simply can't achieve perfection. Human needs at some stage get to trump those of other animals. The trick is working out when we should or should not do that. Personally I think one would do better ethically to catch fish or hunt deer for food than buy commercially grown plant foods. You might even be doing better to buy commercially caught fish, though the impacts in other ways might be greater taken globally.

 

[Jon]

Congratulations on your lifelong commitment to treating other animals with moral concern. There aren't too many people in the world who can make such a claim.

In regard to that sentence, I am only pointing out that regardless of our intentions we simply can't achieve perfection. Human needs at some stage get to trump those of other animals. The trick is working out when we should or should not do that. Personally I think one would do better ethically to catch fish or hunt deer for food than buy commercially grown plant foods. You might even be doing better to buy commercially caught fish, though the impacts in other ways might be greater taken globally.

Thank you for the compliment. They do get to trump other creatures, but they should never do that. We do not have that right. Commercially grown plant foods are better for this world in so many ways, not least financially and for all the other creatures that inhabit this planet. We must re-nature this world or we and all the other creatures will perish. That is, of course, if we last that long and I have my doubts!

 

[bEt]

Graem M. concluded that, "So welfare is all we need to worry about, empirically". IF that were true, the fact remains that
'ethically' farming animals (so that they did not unduly suffer in life) for their meat, eggs, and milk is no longer feasible given the large human population we are now faced with providing for. The argument above that it would be okay to kill an animal if it had had a good life no longer applies in a practical sense, because raising enough animals in that 'ethical' way (enough to feed the 'first world' population in the way it has been fed for the past 50+ years) is not practicable.

Ethical animal agriculture is not possible at scale, so the only ethical option available is strict vegetarianism.

In years past, a strict vegetarian diet was not practical for most people because we didn't have b12 supplements. But today we are gaining more knowledge every day that is making it feasible for most people to have the option of living an optimally healthy life without eating flesh, eggs, or the milk that is meant for calves.

The realities of today's world, including our knowledge of and contribution to global warming, and including the post-industrial nature of our society, and including the large and growing human population, demand that we change the traditions and practices that no longer serve us or future humans, and abandon or rework our present practices as needed.

There was mention of catching fish and hunting deer. Once humans relied on those practices. But today we no longer need to, and it no longer makes practical sense for most people to do so. Even if it were 'ethical' on some other grounds (and I for one do not believe it is), there are not enough wild deer or wild fish to feed us all.

The OP also said, "I am only pointing out that regardless of our intentions we simply can't achieve perfection." Um, yes, it is true that we are human and will never "achieve perfection"--in anything. Is that a reason to stop trying to improve ourselves and our world? Only someone who is feeling depressed, despondent, and hopeless would agree that we must throw in the towel because we can't always be perfect. Honestly, I have to wonder if this thread was begun and continued not with the intent of answering any question but with the intent of inducing that kind of discouragement, or at least doubt or chaos or just to 'get a rise' out of someone. I don't intend to give in to this kind of despondency. We can't be perfect, but we can do something. The real mystery and the real trouble, in my opinion, is why some choose not to. Where does this cynicism come from?

 

[bEt]

Its not possible to mass produce animal products ethically. If they treated all the animals well, then it would be unaffordable.

Danielle already said it better and more succinctly than I did.

 

[Jon]

Grahm M. concluded that, "So welfare is all we need to worry about, empirically". IF that were true, the fact remains that
'ethically' farming animals (so that they did not unduly suffer in life) for their meat, eggs, and milk is no longer feasible given the large human population we are now faced with providing for. The argument above that it would be okay to kill an animal if it had had a good life no longer applies in a practical sense, because raising enough animals in that 'ethical' way (enough to feed the 'first world' population in the way it has been fed for the past 50+ years) is not practicable.

Ethical animal agriculture is not possible at scale, so the only ethical option available is strict vegetarianism.

In years past, a strict vegetarian diet was not practical for most people because we didn't have b12 supplements. But today we are gaining more knowledge every day that is making it feasible for most people to have the option of living an optimally healthy life without eating flesh, eggs, or the milk that is meant for calves.

The realities of today's world, including our knowledge of and contribution to global warming, and including the post-industrial nature of our society, and including the large and growing human population, demand that we change the traditions and practices that no longer serve us or future humans, and abandon or rework our present practices as needed.

There was mention of catching fish and hunting deer. Once humans relied on those practices. But today we no longer need to, and it no longer makes practical sense for most people to do so. Even if it were 'ethical' on some other grounds (and I for one do not believe it is), there are not enough wild deer or wild fish to feed us all.

I've been vegan from birth for 80yrs now. I didn't need B12 supplements because my body naturally produced it. The same applies to everyone, but the use of animal products after weaning stops that production and that is why those turning vegetarian or vegan when changing from a meat eating diet to a vegetable one got ill. Of course the media and medical lot blamed it on the diet but it wan't that at all, just that their bodies had stopped producing B12 because they'd had it in meat etc. And didn''t start up again. I'm 80 and never taken a B12 supplement in my life although it's a bit low now at this age which is normal so I might have take it in a while!

 

[Kathy Lauren]

Yes, I've read a few books about this but mostly it just comes down to someone's feeling that sentience demands a rights based recognition.

Sentience is the only reason that we consider murder, torture, assault, slavery, etc. to be wrong. Yes, you can tell me that you dislike being murdered, tortured, etc., but that is not why civilized people refrain from doing those things and pass laws against them. You don't have to be able to communicate for them to be wrong. They are wrong because you are sentient.

If those things are wrong against humans because humans are sentient, then they are also wrong against animals because they are also sentient. If we can overlook the sentience of animals and enslave or kill them because it is convenient to us, then we can equally overlook the sentience of other humans and enslave or kill them too.

We don't want to go there.

 

[bEt]

Off topic, but I just realized that Plamil makes chocolate bars

Plamil: Chocolate: Vegan, Dairy Free, Gluten Free, No Nuts, Free From

Plamil chocolate: our vegan, dairy free and gluten free chocolate is sumptuous tasting with a superfine texture that just melts in the mouth, manufactured in our 'no nuts used here' factory. 'Free from' chocolate at it's best!

www.plamilfoods.co.uk

Also regarding B12, I wonder if maybe Jon you may be getting a little in your Plamil or Oatly if you're using those?

And by the way, thank you for sharing your life experiences here and on other threads. I for one would love to hear just as much as you have time to share. I had not realized until I saw your posts, just how relatively recently the vegan movement was born. I believe I can safely say that without the work of your dad and you and the other pioneers, I never would have heard of or considered the idea of veganism. It really is a great leap for our species and all the cultures around the world. So thank you.

 

[Lou]

Sentience is the only reason that we consider murder, torture, assault, slavery, etc. to be wrong. Yes, you can tell me that you dislike being murdered, tortured, etc., but that is not why civilized people refrain from doing those things and pass laws against them. You don't have to be able to communicate for them to be wrong. They are wrong because you are sentient.

If those things are wrong against humans because humans are sentient, then they are also wrong against animals because they are also sentient. If we can overlook the sentience of animals and enslave or kill them because it is convenient to us, then we can equally overlook the sentience of other humans and enslave or kill them too.

We don't want to go there.

To paraphrase a famous philosopher, it not whether they can speak, it is whether they can suffer.

 

[Lou]

I've been vegan from birth for 80yrs now. I didn't need B12 supplements because my body naturally produced it. The same applies to everyone, but the use of animal products after weaning stops that production and that is why those turning vegetarian or vegan when changing from a meat eating diet to a vegetable one got ill. Of course the media and medical lot blamed it on the diet but it wan't that at all, just that their bodies had stopped producing B12 because they'd had it in meat etc. And didn''t start up again. I'm 80 and never taken a B12 supplement in my life although it's a bit low now at this age which is normal so I might have take it in a while!

um.... not much of what you said is true.

Yes humans do produce B12. but it has nothing to do with weaning. I'm wondering if you are conflating the fact that normally mammals body's stop producing lactase after weaning.

the number one reason that new vegans get ill is that their guts aren't used to a high fiber diet. Sometimes its just malnutrition because they are simply not eating enough.

Anyway the issue isn't that our bodies don't make B12, it is that the site for B12 absorption is in our small intestine but its production occurs in the large intestine. Herbivores solve this with rumination. except for rabies who have to eat their feces. Carnivores and omnivores just eat meat that has B12 in it.

 

[Lou]

Ethical animal agriculture is not possible at scale, so the only ethical option available is strict vegetarianism.

I would argue that "ethical animal agriculture" is a contradiction of terms. It doesn't really exist. you are still killing the animal. In the end, does it matter ethically how well it was treated.

 

[Graeme M]

Yes humans do produce B12. but it has nothing to do with weaning. I'm wondering if you are conflating the fact that normally mammals body's stop producing lactase after weaning.

Yes, I wondered about this too. I for one would absolutely not recommend to anyone that we can produce enough useful B12 without supplementing. Especially if one is over 50.

Re the sentience thing, I reread this thread and I think I should have been more direct. I get that sentience means other animals can suffer and that sentience is of course one reason that we prohibit murder and torture of other humans (though I think the main reason just is that we are all the same species). But it's not obvious to me why that necessitates extending rights to other species. I think it is clear that sentience might demand that we provide good welfare (ie minimising pain and suffering) to the animals we use, but why that also extends to the other basic rights really just boils down to a philosophical argument. That is, it just seems fair and consistent to believe that sentient species attract basic rights.

I am OK with that. I had just wondered if there were some telling reason why we should use the sentience claim as a compelling argument for extending rights, and in the end I don't think there is. Advocates can say, sentient species deserve basic rights because they are sentient, however critics can respond by saying they do not. And they could offer empirical evidence for that disagreement. So, it does seem to me that all that sentience gives us is a strong case for welfare and a weaker case for basic rights.

 

[Brian W]

Advocates can say, sentient species deserve basic rights because they are sentient, however critics can respond by saying they do not. And they could offer empirical evidence for that disagreement.

How? What empirical evidence?

 

[Graeme M]

How? What empirical evidence?

Sentience is the ability to perceive the world, which is why many species can feel pain and suffer. But we can go a step further and refer to the kinds of experience an organism has. Humans have considerably more complex experiences in many ways and we can point to evidence for this. So it can be argued that while other species can feel pain, necessitating better welfare, only humans harbour the kind of multi-layered, narrative kinds of experience that we have. And it is the latter that we refer to when we are talking about rights to life and liberty.