• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are animals conscious? Sentient?

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No, however people should be aware they can suffer and try to minimise suffering

That should be some kind of prime directive
I feel two ways about that. I agree, and I disagree. I suppose part of me disagrees but part agrees.

The other day I was burning some branches from a tree I cut down. I saw a caterpillar on a branch, but I lost track of it. I had a little argument with myself along the lines of this very subject, because I didn't and don't want to hurt caterpillars. I don't want to hurt them, but I also don't much care for them. On the ground near the fire there was a toad, which was near the fire but was smart enough to escape. I didn't interfere, and it disappeared into the short grass and not doubt was not burned. (No doubt it would eat the caterpillar if it found it.) A few days before that I saw a lizard near a fire on an old log. I don't know, but I think it expected bugs to come out of the wood as it burned. Otherwise it should have run from the fire instead of standing near by, but staying near to the wood almost guaranteed some escaping bugs that it could eat.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi @Brickjectivity - This is an interesting line of thought.
Where then, should society "draw the line"? Mammals? Birds? Lizards? Only primates?
This question is only going to become more difficult in coming centuries. I begin by trying to understand my own value, because someday my own value will be in question. Without knowing this I don't have any idea what to compare other life to. I don't want to be measuring paper dolls. Knowing my value is unfortunately tied to questions about meaning such as whether our lives have meaning. To that there are multiple answers. Some answer no. Some answer yes. I say its something we have to choose. We have to choose to believe that our lives mean something, because there is no other good choice. Starting from there (choosing that I have value) I also have to decide what my value is and what the value of other life is relatively.
I agree with you, and while I'm vegan for the health of it, I find it pleasant to not be part of the slaughter of various animals for my nutrition. But if I run over a worm or ant, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I also have no qualms about exploiting yeast for bread and bees for their honey. :shrug:
But should people be punished for the deaths of animals that they cause? And if you're some sort of theist, then should all the deaths of animals caused by your life here on Earth, be weighed against your soul in the afterlife?
'The Afterlife' is a strange place. I think that yes the weight of the creatures I have killed or caused to be killed do "Weigh against" me but, I think that weights are not a good analogy. The best way to describe it is that I and all things are a little thinner because of it. I am a bit less, however I'm part of all of this, not some separate thing that moves pieces around on a board. Therefore it is not me alone but everything which is a bit less in potential; but their deaths haunt me personally, because each moment is eternal. I mean that time passes, but each moment remains. In that moment I exist as a disaster for them, and I am there always like a comet in a painting. I can never leave that or make it not be. Its like being a statue of a killing. Would you rather be a statue of a killing or a statue of something else such as someone running, building, creating smiling. We have all these moments only once, but they never truly disappear. Its analogous to returning to them infinite times and living our lives over and over, misery and happiness repeated. I like to think that we cycle through time and can make small changes each time, but that is wishful thinking. We go through once, and we are what we are. That is the weight.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
I believe other non-human animals do have consciousness and sentience, maybe even a conscience. They have souls, so to speak.

Of course, if insects have that I may feel some guilt. No telling how many thousands of roaches, bed bugs and the like that I have mass destroyed. I sort of hope they don't. Thousands likely could have suffered before death. :(
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Are there really degrees of sentience though????

Surely you either have it or you don't?
Well besides the fact that degrees implies a scale of non-zero numbers, anyone here capable of defining non-sentience or the actual zero value.?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
To me knowing they have thoughts and feelings was intuitive.

But I'm confident this is the case, but I think it's at least in part due to indoctrination. I recall as a child arguing with a nun in class over this.
Me too. I find a dogs face to be highly expressive of emotion. And they even have a sense of humor. I remember once at a holiday gathering with the in-laws, one of my brother in laws left a sandwich on the coffee table while he went to use the John. One of the dogs picked up the sandwich, and I thought at first he would eat it, but no, he took it over to the closet and hid it inside. Then the dog returned to the same place he had been sitting before. When my BIL came back, and was like, "Where the heck is my sandwich?" the dog had the biggest grin you could possibly imagine.

I've also noticed that when I come home, even though my cat is hungry and time to feed her, even though I put food in her bowl, she first spends a minute or so just snuggling with me before she goes to eat. Basically, I know she loves me.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Please define soul in a way that is observable or measurable. Thanks.
Missed the "so to speak"? Anyway. The way I was using the word soul lies in that they may also have a conscience. And with that they have a vitality, character and persona. Ways I would say a soul can be observed, measured and defined. It doesn't necessarily imply anything supernatural about it either.
 

Secret Chief

Degrow!
How do you propose to show that that is the case?
"Worms and earthworms do have a brain, and it’s what they use to feel pain and coordinate movements with their senses.

Still, since they are small animals, their brains aren’t that complicated. Of course, they need a brain since it functions for basic movements.

Nevertheless, the brain of worms remains incapable of critical thinking, much more of emotions."

- Do Worms and Earthworms Have Heads and Brains? (8 Facts) - AnimalFate

I am now an expert on worms!
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm confused about where you the comparison doesn't fully apply. Are you refuting that there was a time that masters didn't consider their slaves inferior and treat them as animals?

No, I'm not refuting that. I think the comparison doesn't apply because it addresses a form of mistreatment of other humans, not non-human animals. Like I said, most people throughout history, for various reasons including evolutionary factors, haven't treated members of their own species the exact same way as they have members of other species. The vast majority of people don't think of fishers as mass murderers, nor do most people view abattoir workers the same way as they do executioners and serial killers. Whether this is right or wrong is a separate question from the fact that it is the case.

It's a bit unfair to make such an extreme comparison, but I don't make it a point to befriend or accompany anyone that kills any animal indiscriminately.

Why don't we start with a comparison of human and chimpanzee instead. Would you be likely to befriend someone who killed a chimpanzee today and accompany them anywhere?

We can use any non-human animal in the comparison if you prefer, although I will also point out that I wasn't referring to indiscriminate killing. We could, for example, go with a scenario where a farmer sells the meat of cattle and pigs for food; that would be the reason for killing them, so it wouldn't be indiscriminate. There are people on this very forum who have lived on farms, and most members are meat eaters. You and I still talk to them and have no problem befriending them; would we do the same with cannibalistic killers?

As for your question, no, I wouldn't be likely to befriend or accompany such a person anywhere. However, I think cultural and societal norms partially come into play here: neither your society nor mine considers it normal to kill chimpanzees for food, and they're not commonly farmed for that purpose. The same goes for dogs and cats, and if I met someone who had just eaten a dog or a cat, I would be uncomfortable hanging out with them. In addition, chimpanzees are extremely intelligent and highly capable of experiencing suffering, so that's another factor I would consider.

I recognize that being used to the normalization of eating cows and pigs but not dogs or cats is a largely subjective and culturally dependent inclination, though. Pigs are similarly intelligent as dogs, but I would have no problem hanging out with someone who regularly ate pork—and again, I'm sure that both you and I regularly talk to people who eat it. Squids and octopi are immensely intelligent, but I don't feel the same way about seeing them being eaten as I would seeing a dog or a cat being eaten. Is there a strictly objective, rigorously logical argument for this variation in reactions to the eating of different animals? I don't think so, myself, just as I don't think that there's a strictly objective reason to view farming of pigs for food as different from farming cats or dogs for the same purpose.

Again, an extreme comparison, but I suppose I should appreciate your not using the fly again as an example. I'll just point out that we've made laws against killing chimpanzees. We've also made laws about puppy mills.

By saying that the comparison is extreme in the case of a fly or a fish but not in the case of a chimpanzee, does this imply that we're distinguishing between three non-human species even if they're all conscious? Yes, the laws against killing chimpanzees are stricter than the laws against killing a fish, and the laws against killing humans are stricter than the laws against both. As far as I can see, this means that society has effectively decided to rank different species in terms of protection.

The laws against puppy mills seem to me a case in point about what I just said regarding pig farms: why are there no laws against farming pigs even though they're similarly intelligent as dogs? And if we say, "Yes, there should be laws against farming pigs too," why stop there and not also include fish, bees, birds, and other animals?

When society distinguishes between different species in terms of legal protection, it has already decided to rank them in some way. What is the baseline or threshold of intelligence or capacity for suffering that should give an animal more protection than another?

I don't have any definitive answer to these questions; I think a lot of them significantly vary based on cultural, societal, and legal norms. I'm strongly in favor of laws against indiscriminate killing of any animal, and I'm strongly in favor of laws against farming chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and various other animals for food. If you asked me whether I felt, on an emotional level, the same way about someone who farmed cattle for food as I did someone who farmed dogs or cats, I would say no. Why? I have no objective basis for that; I mainly do because of having been immersed in the norms of most societies around the world, including my own.

I also think the capacity for experiencing suffering, which evidence indicates may be related to the constitution of different animals' nervous systems, is part of the equation, which is part of why I believe it is appropriate to have stronger legal consequences for harming a chimpanzee than for harming a fly or a scorpion. Even if everyone went vegan today, humans would still need to kill or otherwise harm members of some species, whether directly or indirectly, in order to farm our crops (mainly but not exclusively insects). In effect, veganism becomes a choice between two forms of killing where one is deemed less harmful or conducive to suffering than the other, not between killing and not.

I'll just point out here now that I'm not expecting everyone to adopt my mindset straight away, but I do take exception to it being said that it's not realistic for meat eating to disappear anytime soon. To me, it's just making an excuse for things not to change because it's just what people do, and we can't expect people to inconvenience themselves. Such attitudes delay or hinder any change. I go back to my previous post and the slavery example. The problem is complacency.

There are millions of people around the world whose main form of sustenance is meat, out of necessity rather than mere convenience, and many others whose livelihood relies on fishing, animal farming, etc. While I don't doubt that complacency is part of the issue for many people, I don't think that applies to everyone.

I see it as unrealistic to expect meat eating to disappear anytime soon because 1) it has been part of humans' diets for about as long as we have existed, and entire societal and cultural norms are built around it, and 2) like I said, for various reasons that include evolutionary factors, most humans don't view fellow humans the exact same way as they do members of other species.

Is this an ideal status quo? I don't think so, since I believe that even if humans don't stop eating meat altogether, we need to consume less of it for the sake of the environment and the animals that are mistreated in industrial farms. Regardless of my belief that this status quo is not ideal, though, I think meat eating will most likely remain widespread for decades if not centuries to come. I think any major changes will probably be in the extent to which meat eating is common and in the methods used to produce meat, but the practice itself won't disappear.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Idiot scientists-You guys we just discovered animals are sentient!

I don't think this reflects what the research states, though. Rather, the research seems to be about highlighting the consciousness of some species that have long been thought to either not be sentient or to have "lesser consciousness."

It seems to me that it is much easier for someone to say that they "know" something like this—and they could even be right—than it is to show rigorous research demonstrating it. I appreciate the work of those scientists, because it has the potential to considerably influence future policymaking and animal protection. Without the research, I doubt that they would have the same ability to influence policymaking.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I'm not refuting that. I think the comparison doesn't apply because it addresses a form of mistreatment of other humans, not non-human animals. Like I said, most people throughout history, for various reasons including evolutionary factors, haven't treated members of their own species the exact same way as they have members of other species. The vast majority of people don't think of fishers as mass murderers, nor do most people view abattoir workers the same way as they do executioners and serial killers. Whether this is right or wrong is a separate question from the fact that it is the case.



We can use any non-human animal in the comparison if you prefer, although I will also point out that I wasn't referring to indiscriminate killing. We could, for example, go with a scenario where a farmer sells the meat of cattle and pigs for food; that would be the reason for killing them, so it wouldn't be indiscriminate. There are people on this very forum who have lived on farms, and most members are meat eaters. You and I still talk to them and have no problem befriending them; would we do the same with cannibalistic killers?

As for your question, no, I wouldn't be likely to befriend or accompany such a person anywhere. However, I think cultural and societal norms partially come into play here: neither your society nor mine considers it normal to kill chimpanzees for food, and they're not commonly farmed for that purpose. The same goes for dogs and cats, and if I met someone who had just eaten a dog or a cat, I would be uncomfortable hanging out with them. In addition, chimpanzees are extremely intelligent and highly capable of experiencing suffering, so that's another factor I would consider.

I recognize that being used to the normalization of eating cows and pigs but not dogs or cats is a largely subjective and culturally dependent inclination, though. Pigs are similarly intelligent as dogs, but I would have no problem hanging out with someone who regularly ate pork—and again, I'm sure that both you and I regularly talk to people who eat it. Squids and octopi are immensely intelligent, but I don't feel the same way about seeing them being eaten as I would seeing a dog or a cat being eaten. Is there a strictly objective, rigorously logical argument for this variation in reactions to the eating of different animals? I don't think so, myself, just as I don't think that there's a strictly objective reason to view farming of pigs for food as different from farming cats or dogs for the same purpose.



By saying that the comparison is extreme in the case of a fly or a fish but not in the case of a chimpanzee, does this imply that we're distinguishing between three non-human species even if they're all conscious? Yes, the laws against killing chimpanzees are stricter than the laws against killing a fish, and the laws against killing humans are stricter than the laws against both. As far as I can see, this means that society has effectively decided to rank different species in terms of protection.

The laws against puppy mills seem to me a case in point about what I just said regarding pig farms: why are there no laws against farming pigs even though they're similarly intelligent as dogs? And if we say, "Yes, there should be laws against farming pigs too," why stop there and not also include fish, bees, birds, and other animals?

When society distinguishes between different species in terms of legal protection, it has already decided to rank them in some way. What is the baseline or threshold of intelligence or capacity for suffering that should give an animal more protection than another?

I don't have any definitive answer to these questions; I think a lot of them significantly vary based on cultural, societal, and legal norms. I'm strongly in favor of laws against indiscriminate killing of any animal, and I'm strongly in favor of laws against farming chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and various other animals for food. If you asked me whether I felt, on an emotional level, the same way about someone who farmed cattle for food as I did someone who farmed dogs or cats, I would say no. Why? I have no objective basis for that; I mainly do because of having been immersed in the norms of most societies around the world, including my own.

I also think the capacity for experiencing suffering, which evidence indicates may be related to the constitution of different animals' nervous systems, is part of the equation, which is part of why I believe it is appropriate to have stronger legal consequences for harming a chimpanzee than for harming a fly or a scorpion. Even if everyone went vegan today, humans would still need to kill or otherwise harm members of some species, whether directly or indirectly, in order to farm our crops (mainly but not exclusively insects). In effect, veganism becomes a choice between two forms of killing where one is deemed less harmful or conducive to suffering than the other, not between killing and not.

I see it as unrealistic to expect meat eating to disappear anytime soon because 1) it has been part of humans' diets for about as long as we have existed, and entire societal and cultural norms are built around it, and 2) like I said, for various reasons that include evolutionary factors, most humans don't view fellow humans the exact same way as they do members of other species.
A recurring theme throughout your post(s) is societal standards. As is evidenced by your example of the acceptability of cannibalism, which was socially acceptable in cultures previously and has faded into obscurity, societal norms do change. You said in a previous post that you don't think it's realistic to expect societal norms regarding consumption of meat to change anytime soon. What do you think impacts the rate of change?

You also repeat befriending people as an example, Yes, vegetarians and vegans befriend people who eat meat, kill flies, etc. But it's a mistake to interpret vegetarians'/vegans' acceptance of a person to be an acceptance of their habits. It's also a mistake to interpret vegetarians'/vegans' lack of preaching to be acceptance. Because a vegetarian or vegan acknowledges today's social norms and has learned to tolerate them in no way expresses apathy or acceptance. It's more an acknowledgement of one's right to live their life by their own standards.

There are millions of people around the world whose main form of sustenance is meat, out of necessity rather than mere convenience, and many others whose livelihood relies on fishing, animal farming, etc. While I don't doubt that complacency is part of the issue for many people, I don't think that applies to everyone.
Can you provide examples these necessities and why alternate food sources are not an option? Beyond a fisherman or fishing village that has no access to land in which to grow food, I'm not seeing this to be the case, but I may be wrong.
 
Top