Why do animals suffer?

[redhen]

Ok petey, we seem to be going 'round in circles here. You have so far not explained how emotions would arise in a roomba (or any other machine), so we are still at a conceptual stage of argumentation. You disagree with the commonly held definition of emotion, but you have not given us your definition. All you’ve done is list a few emotions.

Your bottom line seems to be that we cannot observe basic emotions like fear and anger in non-human animals, because we are simply anthropomorphizing them.

I submit that we can observe facial expressions of emotions in all apes, including the naked ones. Psychologists use catalogues of different facial expressions to compare and contrast them in humans. There are also similar catalogues for non-human apes.
books.google.ca/books?id=lloVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=facial+expressions+of+fear+apes&source=bl&ots=-1Su8MMbOd&sig=7vIBcLZHOv1LyVcoQjzdWWzfMkE&hl=en&ei=BMqGSpWyMsaFtgeYl9jnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=true

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2555422

chimpfacs.com/

 

[redhen]

we are actually debating whether they can suffer, weve had a little mission creep.

and diet has everything to do with it, if animals have emotions so we cant eat them, i dont see a rational reason to suppose that plants, who some people believe have emotions, are morally permissible to eat.

Actually this thread started with the theological purpose of animals suffering, and then went off on tangents.

But I think I see your concern more clearly now;

of course, if plants have emotions than we should immediately eat all those evil, plant killing cows!

whats that leave to eat? well, i suppose one can be a fruititarian, but then thats the logical equivalent of eating babies. so your down to things that died naturally, carrion, or air, personally id pick air.

Personally I am hoping the science and technology will increase to the stage where we can grow our own muscle and fat cells, on an industrial scale.

openthefuture.com/2006/12/bioprinters_vs_the_meatrix.html

invitromeat.org/

new-harvest.org/default.php

That way we can all tuck into our juicy steaks and pork chops, without any causing other animals to suffer and die.

Ah well, I can dream can’t I?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok petey, we seem to be going 'round in circles here. You have so far not explained how emotions would arise in a roomba (or any other machine), so we are still at a conceptual stage of argumentation.

its not about how emotions arise in a machine, its that i can equally assert that machines have emotions based on anthropomorphising their reactions to stimuli. i.e, a roomba turns away from a staircase, i can assert that such a reaction is “fear” just as easily as you can assert a rat has “fear”

You disagree with the commonly held definition of emotion, but you have not given us your definition. All you’ve done is list a few emotions.

im only interested in your evidence of emotions, youve given none, its all anthropormorphization, no matter how you define it. you cant show it exists. your definition was only an attempt to avoid the problem of similar reactions performed by machines, you tried to define it out of existence. unless you can justify why we should restrict emotions to a certain chemistry (one among many questions youve ignored) i see no reason to accept that definition. further, we all know what we mean by emotions, if you care to push the point, then prove a specific one like “fear”

Your bottom line seems to be that we cannot observe basic emotions like fear and anger in non-human animals, because we are simply anthropomorphizing them.

bingo!

I submit that we can observe facial expressions of emotions in all apes, including the naked ones. Psychologists use catalogues of different facial expressions to compare and contrast them in humans. There are also similar catalogues for non-human apes.
books.google.ca/books?id=lloVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=facial+expressions+of+fear+apes&source=bl&ots=-1Su8MMbOd&sig=7vIBcLZHOv1LyVcoQjzdWWzfMkE&hl=en&ei=BMqGSpWyMsaFtgeYl9jnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=true

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2555422

chimpfacs.com/

the catalog for non-humans, is nothing but more anthropomorphization. this or that action correlates to this or that facial expression, therefore it must be “fear” and not simply a programmed response to stimuli. i could just as easily make a catalog of a roombas behavior and then assert thats it is emotions, and not just programmed responses.

that is extremely bad science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually this thread started with the theological purpose of animals suffering, and then went off on tangents.

But I think I see your concern more clearly now;

my main concern is the lack of evidence for animal emotions.

Personally I am hoping the science and technology will increase to the stage where we can grow our own muscle and fat cells, on an industrial scale.

openthefuture.com/2006/12/bioprinters_vs_the_meatrix.html

invitromeat.org/

new-harvest.org/default.php

That way we can all tuck into our juicy steaks and pork chops, without any causing other animals to suffer and die.

Ah well, I can dream can’t I?

if i had a moral problem with meat id just get whole proteins from vegetable sources, but i dont, because animals are for our consumption, i wouldnt stop if a cow said “ouch!” i couldnt care less what food says.

 

[Fran65]

Personally I am hoping the science and technology will increase to the stage where we can grow our own muscle and fat cells, on an industrial scale.

What a revolting idea! I know that it is not a rational, but a visceral (no pun intended) reaction. The idea of eating anything like Margaret Atwood’s chicken knobs (from her novel Oryx & Crake) or Soylent Green literally turns my stomach.

As for animals and emotions, there is an enormous literature looking at the existence and reality of this. You can demonstrate animal emotion both behaviourally and neurophysiologically. Animals do not articulate or elaborate emotion, but they do experience them. The evidence is clear and irrefutable.

In addition, animals do suffer. They experience pain, distress and fear, they experience lack of the necessities of life. However, they do not experience the depth of suffering such as anticipated suffering (death, bereavement) and they do not appear to re-experience suffering through recollection as is the case with humans.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

anthropomorphism
anthropomorphism [Gr.,=having human form], in religion, conception of divinity as being in human form or having human characteristics. Anthropomorphism also applies to the ascription of human forms or characteristics to the divine spirits of things such as the winds and the rivers, events such as war and death, and abstractions such as love, beauty, strife, and hate. As used by students of religion and anthropology the term is applied to certain systems of religious belief, usually polytheistic. Although some degree of anthropomorphism is characteristic of nearly all polytheistic religions, it is perhaps most widely associated with the Homeric gods and later Greek religion. Anthropomorphic thought is said to have developed from three primary sources: animism, legend, and the need for visual presentation of the gods.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2004

**The word is being used incorrectly. Therefor, the argument is irrelevant. Animals are composed of the same basic materials and have the same basic neuorostructure as humans. The only difference is their form. **

 

[redhen]

if i had a moral problem with meat id just get whole proteins from vegetable sources, but i dont, because animals are for our consumption, i wouldnt stop if a cow said “ouch!” i couldnt care less what food says.

I bolded that phrase because I think I found the inspiration for it, in the CCC:

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,

358 God created everything for man, 222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

So according to the CCC, non-human animals have no intrinsic value?

Have I got that right? I hope I’m missing something.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

anthropomorphism
anthropomorphism [Gr.,=having human form], in religion, conception of divinity as being in human form or having human characteristics. Anthropomorphism also applies to the ascription of human forms or characteristics to the divine spirits of things such as the winds and the rivers, events such as war and death, and abstractions such as love, beauty, strife, and hate. As used by students of religion and anthropology the term is applied to certain systems of religious belief, usually polytheistic. Although some degree of anthropomorphism is characteristic of nearly all polytheistic religions, it is perhaps most widely associated with the Homeric gods and later Greek religion. Anthropomorphic thought is said to have developed from three primary sources: animism, legend, and the need for visual presentation of the gods.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2004

**The word is being used incorrectly. Therefor, the argument is irrelevant. Animals are composed of the same basic materials and have the same basic neuorostructure as humans. The only difference is their form. **

you are cherry picking one application of anthropomorphism, there are others. specifically the concept applies to any non-human object.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anthropomorphism

an·thro·po·mor·phism (nthr-p-môrfzm) KEY

NOUN:

Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism

an·thro·po·mor·phism
Pronunciation: -ˌfi-zəm
Function: noun
Date: 1753
: an interpretation of **what is not human **or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics

wordiq.com/definition/Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism, also referred to as personification or prosopopeia, is the attribution of human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals, forces of nature, and others. “Anthropomorphism” comes from two Greek words, ανθρωπος, anthrōpos, meaning human, and μορφη, morphē, meaning shape or form

obviously i am using the term correctly. therefore the argument is relevant.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I bolded that phrase because I think I found the inspiration for it, in the CCC:

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,

358 God created everything for man, 222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

So according to the CCC, non-human animals have no intrinsic value?

Have I got that right? I hope I’m missing something.

they have utility value, food, labor, etc. even if they have some intrinsic value from a theological perspective that doesnt prove that they have emotions or suffer.

though i think its interesting that without scientific evidence your willing to resort to arguments from autority that you dont accept yourself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

have some business today, will reply this evening. everybody get away from your keyboards for a few today, G-d did make a wonderful creation, spend some time in it.

 

[redhen]

have some business today, will reply this evening. everybody get away from your keyboards for a few today, G-d did make a wonderful creation, spend some time in it.

Good idea.

I’m outta here.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

you are cherry picking one application of anthropomorphism, there are others. specifically the concept applies to any non-human object.

obviously i am using the term correctly. therefore the argument is relevant.

:blush:darn

 

[Bill_Cherry]

have some business today, will reply this evening. everybody get away from your keyboards for a few today, G-d did make a wonderful creation, spend some time in it.

What a strange coincidence. I just said the same thing to my wife.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What a strange coincidence. I just said the same thing to my wife.

yeah, i talked big and then wound up working until it started pouring rain, no bike ride tonight.

 

[liquidpele]

they have utility value, food, labor, etc. even if they have some intrinsic value from a theological perspective that doesnt prove that they have emotions or suffer.

Haha… I just got a whiff of whites talking about blacks in the 1700’s…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Haha… I just got a whiff of whites talking about blacks in the 1700’s…

well, hey, if you compare me with racists then you must be right, animals have emotions.

 

[liquidpele]

well, hey, if you compare me with racists then you must be right, animals have emotions.

The fact that they were racist is unrelated. The fact that they were so very sure and so very wrong about a very similar topic was what I saw a correlation with.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The fact that they were racist is unrelated. The fact that they were so very sure and so very wrong about a very similar topic was what I saw a correlation with.

unfortunately you chose an offensive way of expressing it, and frankly how can you say im wrong if you dont have evidence?

 

[wanstronian]

WSP - as animals can’t turn round and tell us that they feel lonely, you seem to have taken an arbitrary point of view that suits your own purpose. This shows as much logic as your contingent argument that God exists because we do - ie. none.

It is very difficult to prove comprehensively that animals feel emotion, although anecdotally and scientifically, the evidence suggests strongly that they do. Given that we know for a fact that animals have nervous systems and undoubtedly respond to pain, isn’t it better to give them the benefit of the doubt and try and avoid their suffering? Or are so you entrenched in your beliefs that you cannot even consider you might be wrong?

 

[liquidpele]

unfortunately you chose an offensive way of expressing it, and frankly how can you say im wrong if you dont have evidence?

Don’t take offence. I used the word “whiff” for a reason, the situations are clearly not the same, I certainly don’t know enough about you to claim you’re racist, and I don’t have evidence to prove you are wrong.

This leaves 2 points:

1. I could look up evidence, but you’ve clearly already rejected some supplied by others, so I don’t see the point. Note that evidence is not proof, it just supports a hypothesis.
2. Your rationale reminded me of the same rationale used for slavery, and so I brought it up. Is it not interesting that people used to think blacks as animals? Even in modern day, we treat each other sub-humanly in many places. Clearly humanity is not very good at deciding what is just a meat-roomba. Then again, maybe we are but we don’t like to admit it.