The distinction between “sentient” and “non-sentient” creatures is not very meaningful. What it’s like for (say) a fish to be killed, is not much different from what it’s like for a human to be killed. (70%)
Our (mainstream) belief to the contrary is a self-serving and self-aggrandizing rationalization.
Allow me to provide the obligatory complaint about (mainstream) conflation of sentience and sapience, said complaint of course being a display the former but not the latter.
But possibly introducing a new problem in as much as the very term ‘sentient’ and some of the concept it represents isn’t even present in the mainstream.
I recall back in my early high school years writing an essay that included a reference to sentience and was surprised when she didn’t know what it meant. She was actually an extremely good English teacher and quite well informed generally… just not in the same subculture. While I didn’t have the term for it back then it stuck in my mind as significant lesson on the topic of inferential distance.
I’m inclined to disagree. While I am far from a weapons grade philosopher it seems to me that if we can rationally assign suffering any negative value then the suffering of a sentient being is a worse thing.
Say a gold fish is imprisoned in a fish bowl allowed to starve to death. Say a human being endures the same thing. The gold fish will die in a poor fashion (are there good ones?) and will suffer greatly. The human, by virtue of intellect, can suffer in ways that the gold fish cannot. The human can rail against the injustice of their situation. The human may lament the mistake that led to their imprisonment. They can suffer in numerous unique ways because they can think. Their suffering is greater because it is deeper. The human will understand much more of what is happening to them.
To further expand with: Burying a loved one sucks. The gut level emotional suffering is great. The act of knowing that they are dead and gone makes it so much worse. Comprehending what death is makes it all the more horrible, does it not?
If we allow that suffering is not bad and should not be ameliorated…. I don’t know how to even begin processing that world.
AMMENDED: I fail. Lesson: Read the article and don’t just jump in. If you think somone couldn’t possibly mean what they said make sure you understand the rules of engagement. slaps self
The distinction between “sentient” and “non-sentient” creatures is not very meaningful. What it’s like for (say) a fish to be killed, is not much different from what it’s like for a human to be killed. (70%)
Our (mainstream) belief to the contrary is a self-serving and self-aggrandizing rationalization.
Allow me to provide the obligatory complaint about (mainstream) conflation of sentience and sapience, said complaint of course being a display the former but not the latter.
Our? :)
Fixed.
But possibly introducing a new problem in as much as the very term ‘sentient’ and some of the concept it represents isn’t even present in the mainstream.
I recall back in my early high school years writing an essay that included a reference to sentience and was surprised when she didn’t know what it meant. She was actually an extremely good English teacher and quite well informed generally… just not in the same subculture. While I didn’t have the term for it back then it stuck in my mind as significant lesson on the topic of inferential distance.
I’m inclined to disagree. While I am far from a weapons grade philosopher it seems to me that if we can rationally assign suffering any negative value then the suffering of a sentient being is a worse thing.
Say a gold fish is imprisoned in a fish bowl allowed to starve to death. Say a human being endures the same thing. The gold fish will die in a poor fashion (are there good ones?) and will suffer greatly. The human, by virtue of intellect, can suffer in ways that the gold fish cannot. The human can rail against the injustice of their situation. The human may lament the mistake that led to their imprisonment. They can suffer in numerous unique ways because they can think. Their suffering is greater because it is deeper. The human will understand much more of what is happening to them.
To further expand with: Burying a loved one sucks. The gut level emotional suffering is great. The act of knowing that they are dead and gone makes it so much worse. Comprehending what death is makes it all the more horrible, does it not?
If we allow that suffering is not bad and should not be ameliorated…. I don’t know how to even begin processing that world.
AMMENDED: I fail. Lesson: Read the article and don’t just jump in. If you think somone couldn’t possibly mean what they said make sure you understand the rules of engagement. slaps self
I disagree: We desperately need a continuous scale of personhood. Dolphins and Chims and Ara Parrots are people too!