tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7079646167209568607..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Vegetarianism: moral stance or mere preference?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89708165625928570542013-03-01T22:14:07.424-05:002013-03-01T22:14:07.424-05:00The only reason I can justify myself being a veget...The only reason I can justify myself being a vegetarian is I can relate myself to the pain & suffering of these animals. I can't imagine myself being treated or bred for the sole purpose of being a meal for someone else. People can still argue even Vegans are killing plants. I say yes we are killing, but I say that I can't relate to them. The only question I put is, slavery was abolished long back specifying fellow human beings are not to be mistreated/are to be provided rights to live on their free will. If it applies for abolishment for slavery, whats wrong in feeling the same about animals by Vegans.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08650200591276138658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45618374026579959472011-05-11T09:04:04.535-04:002011-05-11T09:04:04.535-04:00There certainly is a continuum, but it's reaso...There certainly is a continuum, but it's reasonable to think that it stops way before plants. I have no compassion for my broccoli.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71841783990460018012011-05-11T09:01:57.164-04:002011-05-11T09:01:57.164-04:00What if there is a continuum in consciousness rath...What if there is a continuum in consciousness rather than a threshold beyond which morality applies. Even plants have their own system of communication and of "being conscious" of their surroundings. So the question would be not so much about setting a morality threshold but about how to minimize the unavoidable fact of having to eat to remain alive. Vegetarianism -better even veganism- is the consequential choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26524979144916010012011-01-31T14:31:16.217-05:002011-01-31T14:31:16.217-05:00Uuufff, first of all, it seems I have come late. T...Uuufff, first of all, it seems I have come late. There are a lot of comments to the initial posts and different approaches. <br /><br />I will tell mine as brief as I can. Without referring to previous ones.<br /><br />In my case, I am not really a vegetarian. From time to time I eat meat and fish, but rarely. Usually, when I am with my family, which is not vegetarian. And I also accept meat if it comes from my family. <br /><br />I started to think about vegetarianism after reading a book, basically. The book said that eating meat to produce meat does not seem the best way to do it. Although there are predators that eat (and so, control) hervibore animals produce meat eating vegetables. This way of thinking stroke me quite a lot for some reason. And I liked it.Oscarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04360507492938258763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69209335218613619132011-01-28T01:04:31.634-05:002011-01-28T01:04:31.634-05:00Ah, my bad. I read you as responding to me because...Ah, my bad. I read you as responding to me because of your word choice. I would then simply point up and say that I provided other justifications for vegetarianism than the one you're attacking.<br /><br /><br />On the objectivity of morals: I would claim that all claims are subject to dispute, and that these disputes don't have a judge yet are still able to be settled in a rational fashion. For example, it was once thought that Newton's Law of Gravitation was true. But then a dispute arose over that, and we no longer think that now. Further, the slipperiness of the word "moral" isn't a problem for moral discourse, and arises more out of ignorance of moral discourse than it does from some intrinsic property of the subject matter itself (though I would agree that it's "soft", I don't think "soft-ness" discludes discourse)<br /><br />To answer your question:<br /><br />I would say that no one gets to decide what constitutes necessary suffering. If it's necessary, then decisions have nothing to do with its presence. I would agree that persons judge whether or not suffering is necessary, but that's separate from whether or not suffering is necessary.<br /><br /><br />The grounds I would use:<br />I would point out that it's possible to change our meat eating habits, and even reasonably so, and that therefore meat eating is not necessary or even implausible to stop.<br /><br /><br />Since humans are a social species, with a sense of empathy, I would argue that this is one good way of placing morals within a naturalistic framework. It certainly requires more argument than this simple sentence, but I generally tie our feelings and emotions as intimately associated with our moral reasoning, which I would agree is just as factual as being right handed.FUGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48877812144578869152011-01-27T22:37:02.715-05:002011-01-27T22:37:02.715-05:00Well FUG let me see. Mostly what I was doing was ...Well FUG let me see. Mostly what I was doing was trying to answer that question at the top of the article. "Vegetarianism: moral stance or mere preference?"<br /><br />I suppose I could have just said - 'mere preference' and let it go at that, but I (as many do) have an instinctive defensive reaction when people accuse me of being immoral. It threatens my self-image as a good person. Perhaps people should have a morality score like a credit score so that we could compare.<br /><br />Since I don't regularly read philosophical tracts I am afraid most of the jargon went by me, but I will answer as I can.<br /><br />Right now out there in the world predators are killing and eating other animals but they are not immoral because they don't have a mental model which enables them to understand that their prey has a nervous system and thus can feel pain and suffering. I guess if a pure carnivore ever did have such a realization it could then choose between immorality and starvation.<br /><br />Human beings on the other hand are immoral if they make other creatures suffer because their mental model of the world and how it works does enable them to understand that they are causing creatures pain.<br /><br />According to my interpretation of the title question Vegetarianism is the stance that humans eating meat (of any sort, garnered in any fashion) is immoral either because this causes suffering to animals or because we don't have to in order to survive.<br /><br />In truth the definition of the word 'morality' is slippery as a snake. If I say something is moral and you say it isn't what happens then? No purely objective judge will miraculously appear to settle the issue.<br /><br />Anyway I do have a question for you. Who gets to decide what is necessary suffering? Obviously the people who eat meat knowing that it is factory farmed have decided that the suffering of those animals is necessary in order for them to enjoy the taste of them. On what grounds will you tell them that their suffering is unnecessary?<br /><br />As part of a social species I think that I was born with a degree of empathy and compassion in which case these are just inherent characteristics and no more moral than my being right handed.Thameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056803143951310082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8091561550482456232011-01-27T16:42:34.317-05:002011-01-27T16:42:34.317-05:00Jonathan said: What I do think is fairly clear is ...Jonathan said: <i>What I do think is fairly clear is that we simply don't have the *space* to give the number of animals now being raised as food decent lives.</i><br /><br />Technically, there may be enough space, but at what cost? For example, one of the arguments for reducing meat consumption is that the economic interests of ranchers compete with other interests (e.g. wilderness conservation and non-agrarian human settlement) in terms of land use. This is a problem even (or especially) if the livestock that comes to occupy that space is given a decent life and a painless death (i.e. by the standards of its breed). So it seems that one of the criteria of an ethical omnivore would be that the farm take up enough space so that the animals can move around comfortably. (Note that, from an animal welfare point-of-view, this implies "large scale" in a good sense.) And, of course, the more animals, the more space required. <br /><br />Yet, at least in developed countries, where the supply of cheap land is relatively scarce, there is an economic incentive to concentrate livestock animals into smaller, more crowded spaces (analogous to cities) - both to meet consumer demand and to turn a profit. So, one can reasonably expect that the combined forces of human population growth, free-market dynamics, and a natural human appetite for animal flesh will eventually lead to a "factory farm" scenario. <br /><br />Sure, reducing demand for animal products through the collective practice of restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarian, vegan, and locavore) might add up to a counter-incentive (i.e. if the demand reduction were to create a meaningful price signal), and better laws and tighter regulation almost certainly would. It's a question of which strategy is more appealing and which stands a better chance of success. Clearly, I prefer the latter, which plays out more like a political cause than a personal lifestyle choice (although I have in the past experimented with plant-based diets, and still try to take it easy on the meat consumption).mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45233678446419572532011-01-27T15:30:15.748-05:002011-01-27T15:30:15.748-05:00@ Thameron
You neglected where I pointed out how ...@ Thameron<br /><br />You neglected where I pointed out how the mean between extremes might actually be the more moral position. You're fishing for a reductio ad absurdum, but doing so against straw men by taking a single phrase out of my argument to draw it to some silly conclusion that my position wouldn't endorse. Further, you're equivocating with the word "suffering". As you've lain it out, suffering here is a necessary suffering, a part of life, something that is inescapable. That is clearly not what I'm pointing out in my deontological argument, however, because I state that we should reduce unnecessary suffering. <br /><br />Further, you haven't addressed either my virtue-theory argument from the virtue of compassion, which is radically different from the focus on suffering within my deontological argument in that it is actor centered, not action centered, or my Nietzschean argument which has nothing to do with suffering, though it is somewhat analogous to another take on virtue-theory. <br /><br /><br />Could you clarify how empathy is somehow not tied up with morals?FUGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66939682906835368372011-01-27T03:08:31.625-05:002011-01-27T03:08:31.625-05:00The conservation of diminishing natural resources ...The conservation of diminishing natural resources is arguably an ethical reason to go vegetarian, Massimo. That said, per the link Baron P. posted, Dutch, or other, scientists may make "artificial meat" and thereby bring that into a different light.<br /><br />Or, per your noting of the cognitive differences of animals, one could eliminate pork, or pork and beef, but still eat, if not beef, at least chicken and fish, as far as the most common American meatstuffs.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22011261473730030022011-01-27T01:53:18.508-05:002011-01-27T01:53:18.508-05:00"Baron, there is no "reason" behind..."Baron, there is no "reason" behind what's natural. Nature just is. Human beings have reasons, hence the distinction between non-moral actions (most animals) and moral decisions (us)."<br /><br />Here is something you don't see every day. A fellow schooled in evolutionary biology who makes a statement implying (at least on the face of it) that human beings are somehow not animals and their thoughts are separate from nature. <br /><br />How very peculiar since human beings are in fact animals and are part of nature therefore everything we do, think and create will be part of nature as well including 'reasons' and morality.Thameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056803143951310082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76426980202769875292011-01-27T01:29:24.275-05:002011-01-27T01:29:24.275-05:00There seem to be several different arguments going...There seem to be several different arguments going on here.<br /><br />The first is that eating meat (presumably any kind of meat is immoral). The reasoning behind this is I guess that it is immoral because vegetarians say it is. The suffering argument does not hold because it is possible to kill wild (freest range)animals almost instantly (bullet through the brain) and then eat them all virtually without making it suffer. So where exactly would the immorality be in that circumstance? Hunting game animals (as long as you are a decent hunter) seems just fine.<br /><br />The second is that factory farming is immoral because the animals are capable of feeling pain, are treated poorly and thus suffer. I pretty much agree with this, but the reason I agree is not from some moral consideration. It is that I have empathy for creatures which are at least vaguely like me (mammals). The further from our branch of the tree of life you stray the less my empathy becomes. My empathy for insects for instance is virtually non-existent and I feel no guilt at all killing them. Who besides Jainists mourn the death of a cockroach or bedbug?<br /><br />The practicality argument - that raising beef cattle for consumption is an inefficient use of resources in order to obtain protein seems to be a rather separate issue (unless you consider inefficiency immoral). <br /><br />So the answer to the question of whether meat is moral seems to depend on how it lived and how it died.<br /><br />Now we come to a few interesting twists in the 'causing suffering is immoral' argument.<br /><br />Let us suppose that creatures with the most advanced nervous system are capable of the most suffering so it might be fairly argued that human beings are the best equipped creatures to experience suffering currently on the planet. In fact I think humans suffer uniquely in that they are probably the only creatures here that have knowledge of their inescapable death. I think it is fair to say that a vast majority of human lives contain suffering. Some contain quite a lot. So what could we say about people who intentionally create a human life knowing that it will suffer? By the 'causing suffering is immoral' argument you would have to count that as an immoral act. Therefore all human parents are immoral.<br /><br />Conversely eliminating suffering would be a moral act and we can be pretty sure that the dead do not suffer. Therefore while torture is immoral killing is not. In fact if you were able to instantly kill every animal on this planet all at once when the sun rose tomorrow there would be no suffering at all. None.Thameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056803143951310082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61370861427832050572011-01-26T20:52:41.380-05:002011-01-26T20:52:41.380-05:00Ethically grown meat on the future menu?
http://b...Ethically grown meat on the future menu?<br /><br />http://biotech.about.com/b/2010/06/07/the-reality-of-artificial-meat.htm<br /><br />New excuses may be needed not to eat it.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12576977735801850442011-01-26T20:04:50.904-05:002011-01-26T20:04:50.904-05:00Roshan,
As to what I've derived from the talk...Roshan, <br />As to what I've derived from the talk by Daniel Kahneman, rather than discussing the difference between the experience and how it's remembered (and with respect to human rather than another species), it seems he's discussing what you eventually choose to remember and not necessarily how you choose as much as why. <br />But there's a difference between what you choose to consciously remember from experience and what you end up learning from it, and how the cumulative effects of those experiences will in time become responsible for a species' instinctive behaviors.<br />Unless of course you believe that instinctive behavior has nothing at all to do with learning from experience.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51518246684736960762011-01-26T18:36:17.284-05:002011-01-26T18:36:17.284-05:00Stan --
Cows that graze primarily on grass, are ...Stan -- <br /><br />Cows that graze primarily on grass, are given ample space to graze, are well cared for, etc., are, sadly, the minority. When I buy beef, I try to buy it from farms that raise their cows in humane and sustainable ways -- that treat them well, give them plenty of space, let them spend most of their lives eating what they evolved to eat, etc. I've visited a few of the local farms I buy from, and I've been happy with what I've seen. It sounds like I might be pretty happy with what I'd see at your farm, too.<br /><br />I've seen giant feedlots, too, and I don't like what I see there. Nothing I've read about how most cows are treated in massive farms, how they live, what they eat, etc., makes me think that the majority of cows raised for beef in the U.S. have had good lives. (I also don't like sub-therapeutic antibiotic use, but that's another issue). <br /><br />I don't think the *primary* issue is that is "immoral" to eat meat per se. The current way that most meat is produced in the U.S. and most of the world encourages the long-term mistreatment of animals (that's bad), and encourages us to eat more meat than can be sustainably raised given the environmental costs (that's bad). <br /><br />Vegetarianism is an easy response to do these problems, and one that could be practiced universally. There are other plausible responses. <br /><br />If the concern is a more Kantian one (treating animals as means, etc.) then I'm going to need a better argument to the conclusion that the non-human animals that we eat are capable of setting the kinds of ends for themselves that a Kantian approach pre-supposes. Again, I worry that pigs might. I don't worry that chickens do (though we keep 3 chickens for eggs, and are quite fond of them in a weird way, I don't think they have life-plans, and I don't think killing one would be a misfortune for it, if it could be done w/o the chicken suffering).Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364316598293820961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43059808211788054312011-01-26T18:19:15.752-05:002011-01-26T18:19:15.752-05:00Roshan, pain by definition is a unitary concept fo...Roshan, pain by definition is a unitary concept for suffering. How the signaling functions work at different evolutionary stages of development in different species is not unitary. And of course there are multiple pathways to multiple memory repositories. <br />But if your argument is that certain suffering is felt but not remembered consciously, even if the organism lives in some fear of it, I'd say your concept of consciousness as other than an evolved state of awareness is flawed. <br />Bottom line, if a sensation is painful, it's meant to be remembered and on some level consciously avoided.<br /><br />But then again, if you're of the same school as Massimo on the subject, it's only clear that humans have reasons for their actions, and that clearness somehow fades away as we look back down our evolutionary pathways. <br />Unconscious behavioral assessments are somehow not classifiable as reasonable. Behavior is at that level "just is."Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83452970533842276602011-01-26T17:18:29.085-05:002011-01-26T17:18:29.085-05:00@ Stan:
The most common argument contra-vegetari...@ Stan:<br /><br /><br />The most common argument contra-vegetarianism I encounter is "But did you think about...", which your faith paragraph is supported by. Naturally a vegetarian, or any moral agent, didn't calculate or think of every possible effect of their moral action. This doesn't invalidate ethical actions or their supporting grounds, however, because you're presuming a sweeping ethical argument from a moral vegetarian of a specific kind. This applies equally well to the arguments against cat owning vegetarians. Actions and their effects and intents can come in gradations, and it may actually be more moral to fall somewhere in between extremes -- so we can be moral vegetarians, yet still use some animal products like glue, leather, fertilizer, cat food, and so on. This mimimized use of animals may still necessitate vegetarianism, or other moral considerations may necessitate vegetarianism. (Or, not everyone nor are all moral propositions linked to a utilitarian causal fatalism)<br /><br />For example, it may be viewed as compassionate to not eat animals, whether or not you use other animal products. The limitation of animal suffering is still a fact, even if animal suffering is not eliminated.FUGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62687224661020974172011-01-26T16:45:17.965-05:002011-01-26T16:45:17.965-05:00Baron, there is no "reason" behind what&...Baron, there is no "reason" behind what's natural. Nature just is. Human beings have reasons, hence the distinction between non-moral actions (most animals) and moral decisions (us).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9611609478467918052011-01-26T15:41:07.601-05:002011-01-26T15:41:07.601-05:00Baron:
Pain is not a unitary concept as you have ...Baron:<br /><br />Pain is not a unitary concept as you have suggested. The anticipatory part is true, but that's a different, and more reflexive, pathway vs the more complicated emotional pathways in how "we"- as in humans- understand pain. This is where there is dualism (not Cartesian) in experiencing something and "how" we remember it. (Daniel Kahneman alluded to this in one of his Behavioral Economics TED talks).<br /><br />Furthermore, there are multiple pathways when it comes to memory, and I'd reference Eric Kandel's work on memory systems, and the hardest memory pathways to understand and map out are the emotional memories.<br /><br />We still have a long way to understand all the facets of psychology, esp emotions, from Evolutionary stand-point, let alone concepts like Ethics and Morlaity!Roshanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00891753007948426300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69239818462517522242011-01-26T15:21:06.795-05:002011-01-26T15:21:06.795-05:00Massimo, I took Stan's argument to be that eve...Massimo, I took Stan's argument to be that everything that's natural is natural for a reason. But then we get into the philosophical no man's land of purpose, and that's another hill of (vegan?) beans.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10382614418289702562011-01-26T14:42:58.162-05:002011-01-26T14:42:58.162-05:00Baron, I didn't say that you or anyone else is...Baron, I didn't say that you or anyone else is stupid enough to eat poisonous mushrooms. I simply used that as an example of the well known fact that to argue that something is natural and *therefore* good / acceptable is bad reasoning.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60750422034926055472011-01-26T14:40:20.592-05:002011-01-26T14:40:20.592-05:00Further, I also grew up on a farm, belonged to the...Further, I also grew up on a farm, belonged to the 4-H club (which supported humane treatment of all animals), raised chickens, cows, goats, etc. I understand where Stan is coming from, and no, we were not so stupid as to eat poisonous mushrooms, or for that matter, let our animals eat certain kinds of noxious weeds or grasses. Farmers, as a matter of their hands-on familiarity with nature, are the last to automatically equate natural with good.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46293851967171726552011-01-26T14:27:10.988-05:002011-01-26T14:27:10.988-05:00As far as "the remembering part" is conc...As far as "the remembering part" is concerned, anything that feels pain remembers it. That's the whole point of its existence - of the purpose it has evolved or been evolved to serve. Pain is anticipatory. Don't touch that or I'll likely experience that feeling again just as I remember I experienced it the previous time or times. Pain is there to be experienced by anything that's capable of experiencing it, and experience is there to be remembered in whatever memory system an organism has that will allow it to learn. There is really no sentient non-sentient dividing line where some element of pain is not remembered.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35021821495306592852011-01-26T13:03:53.057-05:002011-01-26T13:03:53.057-05:00Stan, I admit to be a "city denizens whose re...Stan, I admit to be a "city denizens whose reality is limited to pigeons on pavement," but your argument has a huge whole right in the middle of it:<br /><br />"Evolutionarily speaking, animals eat animals, and humans are just another animal. You really have no argument that stands against eating meat."<br /><br />Yes, we do, you are committing the naturalistic fallacy, equating what is natural with what is good. I wonder if you also think it's good to eat poisonous mushrooms, they are natural, you know?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10285817567111380352011-01-26T12:56:00.424-05:002011-01-26T12:56:00.424-05:00This blog seems populated by city denizens whose r...This blog seems populated by city denizens whose reality is limited to pigeons on pavement. I own cattle. Yes cattle feel pain; they feel hunger and thirst. But they don't have to worry about that here. Nor do they have to worry about internal or external parasites, or the multitude of diseases that affect wild animals. They have food, water, shade and shelter.<br /><br />No, we don't wipe out entire generations of young animals; we keep the best for replacement bulls and cows. Sweeping moral generalizations are usually wrong.<br /><br />And no, the land is not taken out of grain or vegetable production in order to produce meat. Cattle are found primarily on land that is not suitable for cropping. Remove animal cropping and the land goes out of production. The bulk of a beef animal's protein comes from grass, with less than 15 to 20% coming from grain during the finishing process. Much of the grain is residue from other manufacturing, such as cotton residuals, distiller's grain residuals and so forth.<br /><br />I was a vegetarian for 20 years. It requires consciously (if there is consciousness) balancing the diet. It requires faith that the soil raised for the vegetable crop was balanced - without animal manure or chemical rebalancing (where does one find such soil?). It requires faith that the flour manufacturers didn't grind up a few roaches, that the rice and legumes don't contain any larvae, and that the supplements really contain something besides soy powder. And keep in mind that sugar (white death) is a vegetable product.<br /><br />You may make up all the "moral" arguments you wish. Evolutionarily speaking, animals eat animals, and humans are just another animal. You really have no argument that stands against eating meat. <br /><br />At least educate yourselves before philosophizing. Reality is out there. Go look at it.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44892758552220287822011-01-26T11:32:23.211-05:002011-01-26T11:32:23.211-05:00Massimo, SJK, and Kirby:
Pain is obviously one of...Massimo, SJK, and Kirby:<br /><br />Pain is obviously one of the most complicated concepts, very akin to mental health/illness.<br />At the very minimum, there is the "feeling" part, and then there is the "remembering" part.<br />Sounds like everyone agrees with the feeling or the experiencing part (and the reflexive part of response), but not as much with the remembering part. The conditional or unconditional response to noxious stimulii (eg. pain) may not be sufficient to describe the sum of all the parts of the experience of pain itself, as we understand it in humans, but it's a stretch to say that the lower animals don't experience it or that they are not aware of it. Would this not be a classic example of Qualia?<br /><br />We are barely understanding all the complex pathways of pain in humans(not to mention the cognitive and emotional aspects). How about fear? Is is not linked to pain? Pain may not be the only part of suffering, and fear and manifestations of fear similar to PTSD are evident in animals as well. On a digressive not, how about pleasure or laughter? How about the experiments that showed that even rats experience "laughter" when tickled?<br /><br />We are clearly long ways from understanding pain in it's entirety in humans. Would it not be better to err on the side of sentient beings being able to experience pain, albeit not in similar ways, at least until we understand the complexities of the pathways?Roshanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00891753007948426300noreply@blogger.com