Do animals have consciousness?

[HarryStotle]

…
When I experience pain, I behave in a certain way. When the same things that cause me pain happen to you, I see you react in the same way. When I see the same things that cause me pain occur to animals, I see them react in the same way.

The evidence appears so overwhelming I can;t see how anyone can reasonable even argue that animals do not feel pain.

But yet Catholics do. And such claims can be twisted to perform horrible acts.

I simply cannot understand how people can maintain this horrendous claim.

I suppose your argument above ought to be sufficient to persuade you that the abortion of pain-capable fetuses is a “horrendous” thing. Unfortunately, you seem to be quite willing to grant that women have a right to abort their unborn babies unless they are paid a substantial ransom to stop them.

Here is your case…

I’m just pointing out the inconsistencies in the pro-life worldview. Life begins at conception but they are not alive enough to treat them as citizens.

And…

I do not think we can have a free society if we FORCE women to bring pregnancies to term.

So your argument is that in a “free society” women ought to be able to kill their unborn children despite that those children are just as pain-capable as the animals you claim the killing of is “horrendous?”

“I simply cannot understand how people can maintain this horrendous claim,” you say. Yet, how do you maintain your own “horrendous” dichotomy?

Women ought to be able to kill their own children in the womb, without any regard for fetal human capacity to feel pain, unless society is somehow made to pay for those children despite that the women themselves (in the vast majority of cases) voluntarily brought them into existence.

And the “Catholic” position is the one you find horrendous?

Personally, I find it horrendous to think that someone who actually believes animals are as conscious and aware of pain as we ourselves are could stand by and witness animals tearing each other apart in nature without going out and doing something about that. Perhaps lions, tigers and bears – to say nothing of sharks, snakes, baboons, killer whales, and a myriad of others ought to be arrested and jailed and forced to sustain their existence on lentils and greens.

Overall, your position becomes ridiculous very quickly, which is just one of the reasons I don’t subscribe to it.

The other reason is that if animals were conscious in precisely the way humans are then they would be able to cognitively transcend the current causal order and anticipate ends and means. They would then become as creative as humans in terms of language, art, music, technology and a plethora of other capacities which human alone of all animal species demonstrate. Animals don’t have any of those uniquely self-conscious human traits so we have little reason to think they are as cognitively conscious as humans are.

Your case is very weak, to say nothing of you being self-contradictory in your application of it.

 

[Gorgias]

As an example, I want all able-bodied adults with appropriate wealth that do not have children to be forced to adopt and raise a child. Why is that a problem?

Because it allows the person who conceives to just walk away, and forces another person to take on the responsibility that the other abandons. It’s unjust.

Obviously we are talking about UNNECESSARY pain.

…without, however, explaining what “unnecessary” means, or how you can make the claim to have sufficient perspective to assert “lack of necessity”.

 

[Freddy]

I think this was passed over by @HarryStotle:

HarryStotle:

The fact that we share biological characteristics with animals does not logically imply that we share every characteristic that we possess with animals.

You implied that it was a poor argument to suggest that animals feel pain just because we do. As I pointed out, we are animals. So the connection would appear to be valid. Unless you think that at some point we didn’t feel pain in some distant evolutionary past and then gradually we did.

Is that your position?

 

[Gorgias]

Of course you do realize that the entire foundation of Christianity is based on that concept exactly (transferal of responsibility, specifically when Jesus took responsibility for our sins). But I digress.

No, you don’t “digress”, you “mischaracterize”. No one “forced [Jesus] to take on the responsibility that [humans] abandon.” That’s vastly different than what Jesus did, and I hope you can see that this is so.

And since when is raising a child unjust?

“Raising a child” isn’t unjust – “forcing a person to raise a child who is not theirs” is.

If you want to compromise, how about each able-bodied couple must SPONSOR an unwanted baby - such as paying all expenses, health care, and pay for a nanny, and pay for an orphanage or foster family to take care of the child until it reaches 18?
Why is that unjust?

Because you’re still forcing the person to do so.

Why can’t we use money to solve this problem?

We could have an interesting discussion about whether throwing money at this problem will solve it. However, it’s not the question of “using money”; it’s the question of reaching into your pocketbook and forcing you to spend your money in a particular way, potentially against your will. (That’s a hallmark of a dictatorship, not of a democratic republic.)

The problem, which you are ignoring, is that GOD - who is claimed to be all loving - if he exists, must be cruel and sadistic.

That only holds if you can demonstrate “unnecessary”. Since you don’t have the perspective to do so (none of us do), you therefore cannot assert that case; and therefore, you haven’t demonstrated “cruel and sadistic.”

 

[AlNg]

Because you’re still forcing the person to do so.

I don’t see anything wrong with forcing people to pay taxes for care of orphans.
IMHO it is just to raise taxes so that the child can be supported and taken care of either by a willing family or by an orphanage. I have worked as a volunteer in a Christian orphanage and the children appeared to be quite happy there. What is your solution to the abortion crisis? If the woman does not want the child, then what?

 

[Gorgias]

That is not what I am saying. In the Christian worldview and moral framework, TRANSFERAL of guilt and redemption is allowed and accepted, and in fact essential.

Fine. But you didn’t propose ‘transferral’ – you proposed mandatory and forced transferral. That’s what makes it unjust.

But forcing a parent who can neither afford to, nor desire to, nor the means to raise the child is “just”?

Who is responsible for that child’s conception? Yes… since that parent made the decision to take an action that led to the child’s conception, there’s no “forcing” going on here – they chose it themselves!

(We could talk about conception due to rape, but that’s a different notion altogether.)

Do you not consider a child being raised by someone that cannot do so unjust as well?

Not ‘unjust’. However, definitely deserving of our help.

Solving the problem takes money, effort, dedication, compassion.

Agreed.

Why is this any different than forcing a woman to bring a child to term and raise it herself?

Because she made the choice to take the action that led to the child’s existence.

This is why the pro-life viewpoint is considered “anti-woman”.

Right. It’s “anti-woman” to ask persons to be responsible for their choices, and not just jettison the consequences of their actions. Umm… no.

For example, have the woman bring the baby to term but the father MUST raise it. The woman no longer has to raise the baby. How about that?

There’s merit in that suggestion! However, I think there’s more merit in suggesting that both parents share in the responsibilities.

But it hits everyone in the pocketbook, so it becomes a “bad” idea.

It’s not bad because it costs money; it’s bad because you’re mandating it. If I told you that you must fund an African safari to hunt wild animals, would you object?

Would you be open then, to having all babies assigned to the fathers, and the mothers who bring the baby to term resolved of all responsibility, except some limited financial payment?

As long as the parents agreed to the arrangement? Sure. Let the parents decide, as long as they don’t simply abandon their responsibilities. This (also) doesn’t say that society has no role here.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I suppose your argument above ought to be sufficient to persuade you that the abortion of pain-capable fetuses is a “horrendous” thing. Unfortunately, you seem to be quite willing to grant that women have a right to abort their unborn babies unless they are paid a substantial ransom to stop them.

Did you read my posts? My position is that abortion is wrong and it needs to stop but making it illegal doesn’t solve the root cause of the problem. It is a complex problem and simply making a law banning it will only result in a backlash that extends the abortion issue further.

Your “position” is irrational, at best.

You may as well stake the same claim about murder: that while murder is wrong and it needs to stop, making it illegal doesn’t solve the root cause of the problem.

You may as well throw out all laws while you are at it under your claim that none of them “stop the root cause of evil.”

We need to change the hearts of anyone inclined to do evil to others (the root cause of the problem) before enacting laws that attempt to solve the “root cause of the problem” but can’t because they are mere bandaids to stop the symptoms and not the cause.

In the meantime, murders, theft, rape, abortion, abuse will continue to explode while we search for a cure to the “root cause.” Good luck with that.

Your assumption is that all heart are curable. The doctrine of Hell disagrees with your prognosis.

 

[HarryStotle]

I have laid out my proposals.

As an example, I want all able-bodied adults with appropriate wealth that do not have children to be forced to adopt and raise a child. Why is that a problem? I think it is more than reasonable. You are forcing a woman that does not want the baby AND does not have the financial capability or resources to raise it - so now we make it one step better. The adult doesn’t want the baby but at least has the resources. This is a REAL proposal. You can increase daycare, provide health care and so forth. But each able-bodied adult MUST sponsor at least one baby that would have been aborted.
Do you want to solve the problem or not? Or is it just lip service and when it affects your wallet you back down? I’m serious about it.

That you are “serious about it” doesn’t exactly bolster your case.

It appears that you are quite fine with forcing those NOT responsible for bringing a life into existence to care for that life, but equally fine with NOT forcing those who ARE responsible for bringing a life into existence to look after that life.

It appears you have completely lost your mooring regarding what responsible moral agency entails.

It is the logical terminus of your position, but that only means the absurdity of what you propose takes your position directly down a path to a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[HarryStotle]

What is your solution to the abortion crisis? If the woman does not want the child, then what?

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly. We hold adults accountable by courts of law to live up to their legal, financial, safety, employment, parental, social, behavioural, and contractual obligations, but suddenly where promiscuous sex is involved all responsibility is off the table? Is that your position?

 

[AlNg]

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

How would you enforce this?
God has given adults free will. How do you propose to not permit them to use their free will|?

where promiscuous sex is involved all responsibility is off the table? Is that your position?

I don’t see how you are going to enforce this. Look, there is even a presidential candidate who is in a SS marriage. And even Roman Catholic schools publish materials which congratulate their alumni who get a SS marriage. How would I enforce Catholic teaching on Roman Catholic schools or on a presidential candidate ?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

How would you enforce this?
God has given adults free will. How do you propose to not permit them to use their free will|?

where promiscuous sex is involved all responsibility is off the table? Is that your position?

I don’t see how you are going to enforce this. Look, there is even a presidential candidate who is in a SS marriage. And even Roman Catholic schools publish materials which congratulate their alumni who get a SS marriage. How would I enforce Catholic teaching on Roman Catholic schools or on a presidential candidate ?

By continuing to make the case for stronger laws, better education and clearer thinking, NOT by throwing in the towel by conceding, “We should give up, there is no solution.”

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

HarryStotle:

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

How would you enforce this?
God has given adults free will. How do you propose to not permit them to use their free will|?

where promiscuous sex is involved all responsibility is off the table? Is that your position?

I don’t see how you are going to enforce this. Look, there is even a presidential candidate who is in a SS marriage. And even Roman Catholic schools publish materials which congratulate their alumni who get a SS marriage. How would I enforce Catholic teaching on Roman Catholic schools or on a presidential candidate ?

By continuing to make the case for stronger laws, better education and clearer thinking, NOT by throwing in the towel by conceding, “We should give up, there is no solution.”

Stronger laws against promiscuity? I didn’t think there were any in the first instance.

And earlier you implied that it was a poor argument to suggest that animals feel pain just because we do. As I pointed out, we are animals. So the connection would appear to be valid. Unless you think that at some point we didn’t feel pain in some distant evolutionary past and then gradually we did.

How do you stand on that?

 

[AlNg]

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

How do you enforce this?

By continuing to make the case for stronger laws, better education and clearer thinking,

Good luck with your proposal, but I don’t think that your proposal is even close to not permitting (i.e. forbidding) adults to act irresponsibly. Your proposal only gives them this suggestion and does not forbid (i.e., not permit) anyone to act promiscuously.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

How do you enforce this?

Here is the world we are heading for.

Continue to advocate that “nothing can be done.”

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

HarryStotle:

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

How do you enforce this?

Here is the world we are heading for.

Continue to advocate that “nothing can be done.”

Can’t see nowt regarding promiscuity there. How would you implement it? Who would draw up the legislation? What would the penalties be? How would you police it? If we’re going to ‘do something’ then we need to know what it is we are meant to do.

 

[AlNg]

Continue to advocate that “nothing can be done.”

My claim is that adults have free will.

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

As long as adults have free will, your solution won’t work. Free will permits adults to act in a promiscuous manner and it permits Roman Catholic editors to congratulate SS couples as I have seen them do. Their actions are still wrong, of course. It is just that in many circumstances they have free will to choose what to do.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Continue to advocate that “nothing can be done.”

My claim is that adults have free will.

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

As long as adults have free will, your solution won’t work. Free will permits adults to act in a promiscuous manner and it permits Roman Catholic editors to congratulate SS couples as I have seen them do. Their actions are still wrong, of course. It is just that in many circumstances they have free will to choose what to do.

That would be why a high standard moral education is the basis for individual self-regulation based upon wise and prudent choices that any good person would make. A society that tries to purely legislate morality is doomed to fail.

Which is why, incidentally, that western society is failing. It refuses to tolerate moral education of any kind and its impoverished attempts to legislate even the most basic moral principles are being eroded as it has capitulated to the nonsensical tenet that if anyone anywhere dissents from a principle that principle cannot be left standing.

The only question left on the table is whether we will wake up and turn this ship of fools around or whether we completely lack the moral courage and will.

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

HarryStotle:

Continue to advocate that “nothing can be done.”

My claim is that adults have free will.

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly.

As long as adults have free will, your solution won’t work. Free will permits adults to act in a promiscuous manner and it permits Roman Catholic editors to congratulate SS couples as I have seen them do. Their actions are still wrong, of course. It is just that in many circumstances they have free will to choose what to do.

A society that tries to purely legislate morality is doomed to fail.

…and its impoverished attempts to legislate even the most basic moral principles are being eroded…

So you are pushing for legislating morality.

The “solution” is to not permit adults to act irresponsibly. We hold adults accountable by courts of law to live up to their legal, financial, safety, employment, parental, social, behavioural, and contractual obligations, but suddenly where promiscuous sex is involved all responsibility is off the table? Is that your position?

You are proposing that people will not be permited to act irresponsibly. You are suggesting that we legally enforce moral acts.

Again I ask, who is going to draft the legislation and how is it going to be policed? What will be the penalties for various, yet undetermined, acts?

 

[Gorgias]

The point here is that the action of having sex one time does not equate to the consequence of raising a child.

Sure. It can, however, equate to the consequence of bearing a child and having it placed for adoption. Killing the baby is not a moral alternative.

these are BABIES we are dealing with, not objects. …
So again, I am pro-choice not because I want to be.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. “They’re babies” and “meh, we can reason to killing them” cannot co-exist, except in a strained and tortured logic.

In any case, we’ve gotten rather far afield from “do animals have consciousness”, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Gorgias]

I doubt you read through my posts if you say that.

I literally quoted your post, which says that in nearly consecutive sentences.