My intuition is that your view of animal happiness is closer to the truth than the vegetarians. First, I consider research on happiness even in humans, especially “Stumbling on Happiness” which book I highly recommend. Even for humans, happiness does not generally correlate with what you or I think would make you happy. A compelling example: conjoined twins are generally as happy as “singleton” (i.e. normal) people, but virtually no singleton would guess that intuitively. Generally, we adjust to the status quo across gigantically broad ranges: those who live in the slums of Bombay are not clearly happier or less happy than those of us living in mansions.
So I would imagine chickens in ooky coops, cows in stockyards, like humans, adjust to the mean. Then have their moments of pleasure and moments of pain primarily as variations around that.
And the terror or fear at slaughter? It seems very unlikely that they spend much time dreading it, as my dog trainer said to a couple who was sure the dog was punishing them for going out by pooping on the floor: “I think dogs live more in the moment than that.” And I expect that for cows, pigs, and certainly chickens.
So far, we live in only one world of a possible MWI. So far, mammals are born, they live, they experience emotions positive and negative, and they die. How much sense does it make to adopt a moral system which thinks we are wrong for just doing what nature has very many animals do for millions of years?
How much sense does it make to adopt a moral system which thinks we are wrong for just doing what nature has very many animals do for millions of years?
Maybe a lot. Nature is fucked up. For example, remember Charles Darwin’s parasitic wasps. The hell with nature.
And I expect that for cows, pigs, and certainly chickens.
Certainly chickens? Do you think birds are generally less intelligent/self-aware than mammals?
Some birds, especially corvids and parrots, are among the most intelligent animal species; a number of bird species have been observed manufacturing and using tools, and many social species exhibit cultural transmission of knowledge across generations. Wikipedia
Also see the following links that indicate how similar/intelligent some other species might be:
So far, mammals are born, they live, they experience emotions positive and negative, and they die. How much sense does it make to adopt a moral system which thinks we are wrong for just doing what nature has very many animals do for millions of years?
Morality is not a prescriptive natural law. There is no imperative here. Personally I want to minimize suffering as much as I can. That means that I am going to kill an (subjectively) inferior being to survive. But I am living in a western country, having enough money to effort a healthy diet without inflicting additional suffering for the pleasure of eating meat. Surely if you assign higher utility to eating meat than negative utility to killing other beings, that’s completely rational. But you seem to be committing the naturalistic fallacy here.
Hm. I am currently not clear enough in my head to think it through, but something inside my head thinks that as transhumanists/singularitarians (I somehow dislike those nouns) we have to deal with a quantification of negative utility in inferior species in a way that makes it difficult to dismiss neurological facts with regard to “moral worth” of any entity. I have not thought it through, tough.
Hm. I am currently not clear enough in my head to think it through, but something inside my head thinks that as transhumanists/singularitarians (I somehow dislike those nouns) we have to deal with a quantification of negative utility in inferior species in a way that makes it difficult to dismiss neurological facts with regard to “moral worth” of any entity. I have not thought it through, tough.
I think that what you bring up is a good reason to avoid using happiness as the sole or majority measure for utility or moral value.
Because I doubt you would be at all willing to relocate to the slums of Bombay, even knowing this, and you shouldn’t.
Likewise, swine might get used to (and be as happy) living practically swimming in their own feces and stillborn siblings, but to the extent that we realize that they would really rather not, we shouldn’t force them to. If they are really so mindless as to be indifferent, I don’t see that we should care, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Also, a nitpick; research shows that happiness isn’t correlated with all those things we think make us happy above a threshold. People who starve on a regular basis, or are continually abused really are less happy than the rest of us. We don’t fully adapt to regular torment. The threshold is perhaps shockingly low, but shouldn’t be ignored.
My intuition is that your view of animal happiness is closer to the truth than the vegetarians. First, I consider research on happiness even in humans, especially “Stumbling on Happiness” which book I highly recommend. Even for humans, happiness does not generally correlate with what you or I think would make you happy. A compelling example: conjoined twins are generally as happy as “singleton” (i.e. normal) people, but virtually no singleton would guess that intuitively. Generally, we adjust to the status quo across gigantically broad ranges: those who live in the slums of Bombay are not clearly happier or less happy than those of us living in mansions.
So I would imagine chickens in ooky coops, cows in stockyards, like humans, adjust to the mean. Then have their moments of pleasure and moments of pain primarily as variations around that.
And the terror or fear at slaughter? It seems very unlikely that they spend much time dreading it, as my dog trainer said to a couple who was sure the dog was punishing them for going out by pooping on the floor: “I think dogs live more in the moment than that.” And I expect that for cows, pigs, and certainly chickens.
So far, we live in only one world of a possible MWI. So far, mammals are born, they live, they experience emotions positive and negative, and they die. How much sense does it make to adopt a moral system which thinks we are wrong for just doing what nature has very many animals do for millions of years?
One nitpick:
Maybe a lot. Nature is fucked up. For example, remember Charles Darwin’s parasitic wasps. The hell with nature.
Generally a very insightful post, though.
I for one like to bring up such tasteful subjects as traumatic insemination, “homoerotic necrophillia in the mallard duck”, and baby eating.
Certainly chickens? Do you think birds are generally less intelligent/self-aware than mammals?
Also see the following links that indicate how similar/intelligent some other species might be:
Bigger Not Necessarily Better, When It Comes to Brains
Clever New Caledonian crows use one tool to acquire another
Meet the Genius Bird: Crafty Crows Use Tools to Solve a Three-Step Problem
Metacognitive Apes
Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward
Scientists say dolphins should be treated as non-human persons
Evidence suggesting that humans and other primates process numbers using common cognitive skills with a shared evolutionary origin.
Good Dog, Smart Dog
Common fish species has ‘human’ ability to learn
Octopus carries around coconut shells as suits of armour
Altruistic chimpanzees clearly help each other out
Amazing rats
Ravens console each other after fights
Missile-throwing chimp plots attacks on tourists
How chimpanzees deal with death and dying
Hyenas cooperate better than chimps, study finds
Morality is not a prescriptive natural law. There is no imperative here. Personally I want to minimize suffering as much as I can. That means that I am going to kill an (subjectively) inferior being to survive. But I am living in a western country, having enough money to effort a healthy diet without inflicting additional suffering for the pleasure of eating meat. Surely if you assign higher utility to eating meat than negative utility to killing other beings, that’s completely rational. But you seem to be committing the naturalistic fallacy here.
Hm. I am currently not clear enough in my head to think it through, but something inside my head thinks that as transhumanists/singularitarians (I somehow dislike those nouns) we have to deal with a quantification of negative utility in inferior species in a way that makes it difficult to dismiss neurological facts with regard to “moral worth” of any entity. I have not thought it through, tough.
Hm. I am currently not clear enough in my head to think it through, but something inside my head thinks that as transhumanists/singularitarians (I somehow dislike those nouns) we have to deal with a quantification of negative utility in inferior species in a way that makes it difficult to dismiss neurological facts with regard to “moral worth” of any entity. I have not thought it through, tough.
I nominate this for the title of “Most Gratuitous Quantum Mechanics Reference of the Month”.
I think that what you bring up is a good reason to avoid using happiness as the sole or majority measure for utility or moral value.
Because I doubt you would be at all willing to relocate to the slums of Bombay, even knowing this, and you shouldn’t.
Likewise, swine might get used to (and be as happy) living practically swimming in their own feces and stillborn siblings, but to the extent that we realize that they would really rather not, we shouldn’t force them to. If they are really so mindless as to be indifferent, I don’t see that we should care, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Also, a nitpick; research shows that happiness isn’t correlated with all those things we think make us happy above a threshold. People who starve on a regular basis, or are continually abused really are less happy than the rest of us. We don’t fully adapt to regular torment. The threshold is perhaps shockingly low, but shouldn’t be ignored.