Do animals have consciousness?

[1Lord1Faith]

There’s no anthropomorphising in that whatsoever.

I agree. But I think an important distinction needs to be made regarding decisions that animals make with the kind of decisions that people make.

Freddy’s dog decides that he doesn’t want to go for a long walk so he goes back to the house. What makes a person’s decision distinct from that is that a person could realize “I know I don’t want to go on a long walk with Freddy, but Freddy is my friend so I will go anyway.” I know…dogs are loyal and can be trained to do things they wouldn’t normally want to do. But my point is that people have an ability to reason which can move their will to make them do something purely out of love or charity even for an enemy. Is that the same thing as a loyal dog running into a fire to save it’s owner? IDK.

 

[MNathaniel]

I don’t swat a mosquito out of indifference, I swat it out of not wanting it to bite me.

I’d apply a different rationale in probably a lot of cases. There are differences among organisms that have to do with pain-sensitivity, cognitive capacity, etc – as well as differences between organisms that benefit humans, that harm humans, and that are neutral towards humans. I’d take all of these factors into account when considering my interaction with a non-human organism.

 

[Gorgias]

There’s no anthropomorphising in that whatsoever. The dog DID want to go out as opposed to staying in. He DID realise the difference between a long run and a short jog. He DID therefore make the decision not to go. Those are the facts of the matter and they are undeniable.

Let’s review. On the part of the dog, you asserted:

• ‘desire’
• ‘realization’

How is that not attempting to frame up human emotion and ratiocination as if they were present in the dog? C’mon, man… nice try, but that dog just don’t hunt…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There’s no anthropomorphising in that whatsoever.

I agree. But I think an important distinction needs to be made regarding decisions that animals make with the kind of decisions that people make.

Freddy’s dog decides that he doesn’t want to go for a long walk so he goes back to the house. What makes a person’s decision distinct from that is that a person could realize “I know I don’t want to go on a long walk with Freddy, but Freddy is my friend so I will go anyway.” I know…dogs are loyal and can be trained to do things they wouldn’t normally want to do. But my point is that people have an ability to reason which can move their will to make them do something purely out of love or charity even for an enemy. Is that the same thing as a loyal dog running into a fire to save it’s owner? IDK.

I agree. The subtle variations on a theme that we consider are extremely varied. I would probably prefer to lie on tbe couch myself but I can look forward further than my dog and realise that the tough run will be more benficial in the long term. So he is obviously not exhibiting the degree of rationality that I would. But that he is exhibiting a degree of rationalty appears to me to beyond any doubt whatsoever.

 

[Freddy]

C’mon, man… nice try, but that dog just don’t hunt…

That I like…

But you can’t surely suggest that dogs can’t express a preference? Or that they have desires? Basic desires I’ll grant you. But he’d prefer to go for a walk rather than have a bath, that’s for certain. And if he dcides (yes, actually decides) not to do A but to do B then how can you say he hasn’t realised what the outcomes of each actually are?

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

All the time, people are eating meat obtained from killing animals cruelly in slaughterhouses. Others will live a life of vegetarianism.

I agree inhumane treatment of animals for any purpose is sinful, including improper care on farms and ranches. But I don’t think using animals as food in and of itself is sinful.

If God didn’t want us to eat animals He wouldn’t have made them out of meat.

 

[Gorgias]

But you can’t surely suggest that dogs can’t express a preference?

Express a preference? Sure: left or right? Eat or sleep? Walk or lay down?

Nevertheless, that doesn’t imply rational, conscious choice.

Or that they have desires? Basic desires I’ll grant you.

What would those ‘desires’ be? Food? Shelter? Rest? Again, not evidence of rational thought.

And if he dcides (yes, actually decides) not to do A but to do B then how can you say he hasn’t realised what the outcomes of each actually are?

How can you say that he thought it out and made a rational decision? Without any evidence? And only looking at the ‘choice’ and presuming a rational process?

 

[AlNg]

If God didn’t want us to eat animals He wouldn’t have made them out of meat.

Let’s be clear - most Catholics treat animals humanely.

I don’t think using animals as food in and of itself is sinful.

Have you seen how cruelly animals are treated in the slaughterhouses? This is how you get your meat sold at the local supermarket. Their treatment is so horrific that you can’t post a video showing what these miserable animals have to suffer as they are being slaughtered.

 

[Freddy]

How can you say that he thought it out and made a rational decision? Without any evidence? And only looking at the ‘choice’ and presuming a rational process?

It wasn’t random. This wasn’t a one off. He did it every time. If he makes a different choice based on whether it’s going to be an easy jog or a hard run then he’s obviously making a decision each time.

 

[Gorgias]

It wasn’t random. This wasn’t a one off. He did it every time.

You realize that this provides greater witness to ‘determinism’ than to ‘free will’, right?

If he makes a different choice based on whether it’s going to be an easy jog or a hard run then he’s obviously making a decision each time.

Still doesn’t imply “rational decision”. You keep ignoring that fact.

You see, this is what I find so abhorrent. Why would a Christian even take the position that animals don’t feel pain?

Pardon? Who made that claim? Where did I talk about “not feeling pain”? Better yet, how in the world does this demonstrate that I don’t think that animals shouldn’t be treated humanely?

Christian doctrine collapses on several levels if animals have even a semblance of rational thought, consciousness, or feel pain.

“Feeling pain” is merely a demonstration that animals respond to sensory stimuli. Yes, if we can avoid it, we should. Yet, “stimulus response” doesn’t indicate “rational thought” or “consciousness”.

Second, the concept of Original Sin fails.

OK… you’ve piqued my interest: why do you believe that “animal suffering” disprove “original sin”?

But from a Catholic perspective, he did absolutely nothing wrong. Nothing at all.

You’re mistaken. Your fervor is admirable, but it seems to have clouded your understanding of Catholic teaching. We’re called to be responsible stewards of creation. Not doing so is sinful.

This (among a few other things) really bothered me and caused me to doubt the underlying moral principles behind Christian theology.

You might want to reconsider your doubt… it’s based on a mistaken assumption.

 

[EndTimes]

If so, what differentiates humans from animals?

Of course animals are conscious of the world around them… Even the fly whom one attempts to swat yet who deftly evades the fly-swatter is aware of the swatter and the one who uses it against itself…
Perhaps you meant to say, Consciences?

 

[Gorgias]

It is common in Catholic apologetics that animals do not feel pain.

Huh? Can you provide a citation? I think you’re conflating a discussion of rationality with the notion of response to external stimuli.

If animals do feel pain, then you have to explain why God would allow 2.5 billions years of animal suffering

Is that any different from the general purported “question of evil”?

If pain is not associated with consciousness, then how do you define “response to stimuli” versus other physical reactions (such as gravity)?

Not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. “Physical reactions” are precisely “response to stimuli”.

How can an animal “feel pain” but NOT be conscious?

How are you defining “consiousness” in this context?

Again, then how do you differentiate between pain and reaction to any stimulus, such as being knocked over?

I’m still searching for the qualitative difference you’re looking for. Perhaps you’re defining pain as an evil in and of itself? From a physical perspective, it’s merely a response to a physical state; it’s amoral.

Animals do not avoid all stimuli - so why avoid pain?

It’s a sign that something’s wrong. We – and animals – react to that.

For example, how do you define Original Sin when there were no Adam and no Eve?

There was an Adam and Eve, however. How is it that you’re positing that there were not? And, of course, the most simple definition of “Adam and Eve” is “our first truly human parents”.

So, if you want to argue against a first pair of ensouled humans, then please do so. However, you cannot simply say “no Adam and Eve, and therefore, no original sin.”

I’d like to hear you position before I lay out all the problems that arise.

Sure. My position is “there really were two first truly human (i.e., ensouled) human beings.” Please lay out all the “problems” that arise from that position!

Or are you a creationist, and completely deny evolution?

Of course not! You’re batting 1.000 on inaccurate presumptions!

 

[Gorgias]

You are talking about various encyclicals - there is no theological foundation for treating animals ethically.

Huh?
Genesis 1:26 – " Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth."

Are you really asserting that God commanded humans to act cruelly toward His creation? Are you really suggesting that God meant “dominion” to mean “uncaring subjugation”? If so, you really seem to have a skewed misunderstanding of the nature of God.

Genesis 2:15, 19 – " The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it. … So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name."

In the context of the culture of the original audiences of the Old Testament, “name-giving” implied an authority over – and a responsibility for – what was named. This very act of naming shows that God is placing the moral care of animals in Adam’s hands – he is not only caring for a garden, but for the animals in it.

If an animal is legally your property AND animals do not suffer or feel pain, there is nothing immoral about doing what Michael Vick did.

Wait – the only reason that we shouldn’t harm animals is because they might feel pain? So, if they didn’t feel pain, it would be moral to do them harm? By that standard, it’s completely moral to vivisect animals, as long as you sedate them beforehand. Are you sure that’s the argument you want to make?

 

[o_mlly]

Yes. Animals are aware. What animals lack and humans possess is self-awareness.

 

[o_mlly]

If animals are not conscious according to Catholic dogma, then why do we have to treat them well at all? Why is their well-being relevant?

Animals have moral status but not moral agency. As moral agents, we ought not abuse any creature.

 

[o_mlly]

C’mon, man… nice try, but that dog just don’t hunt…

Would you rather own that dog (assuming it can hunt) or be that dog?

It is common in Catholic apologetics that animals do not feel pain. This is how the problem of animal suffering is resolved.

Perhaps it would be helpful to draw a distinction between pain and suffering. Let’s call pain the suffering that is the real-time sensory experience. Let’s call intellective suffering the ability to suffer in anticipation of a future pain or suffer in recalling a past pain. Animals and humans experience pain. Only humans experience intellective suffering. Of course, we cannot ask Fido why he looks sad as he simply always looks that way.

 

[o_mlly]

My question is simply this: WHY does your theology require animals to NOT experience such suffering?

My theology does not require it; maybe my zoology does though.

I can’t honestly accept the idea that torturing an animal is not a sin.

Neither can Catholics accept that idea. It’s a misuse of creature.

And if you disagree with me and also think torturing an animal is a sin …

? Cognitively dissonant, don’t you think? I cannot disagree and agree with you at the same time.

Keep in mind that you are already well your way to contradicting Thomism, which is the basis for Catholic morality.

Where’s the contradiction?

… that torturing your pet is somehow different …

Who said anything about “torturing”?

 

[Maelstrom1]

This tiny fish can recognize itself in a mirror. Is it self-aware?

 

[AlNg]

Last October I posted about theologian William Lane Craig’s ridiculous claim, made in a video debate with philosopher Stephen Law, that animals don’t perceive pain.

I would suggest that Mr. Craig view some videos of animals as they are being herded into the slaughterhouses or that he visit a slaughterhouse himself. He will see animals screaming and wailing in pain and suffering.

 

[Maelstrom1]

The science is incomplete. The problem is, as always, humans are attempting to justify their own perception of superiority. Jesus tried to instruct us in a simplistic manner but we’ve found this to be too annoying and reject it, by and large. It may not be in the words but is certainly so in the deeds. Rational? Not usually. Driven to sinful instinct? Frequently. Theologians and philosophers love to sidestep this in order to sell their own brand of human existence