6 ms·

Come on people. What about thousands and thousands of disease model lab rats, genetically engineered to suffer cancer and other horrible illnesses? Should we st

by cdi 13y ago

Come on people. What about thousands and thousands of disease model lab rats, genetically engineered to suffer cancer and other horrible illnesses? Should we stop biological and drug research? Misery is electrons flying in the brain. Would you empathize with a computer program simulating pain model, when pain level is increased, or when computer is powered off? Animal is a mechanism. Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicting suffering btw.

StavrosK 13y ago
Humans are animals too, and we empathize with them, so there has to be a line somewhere. You either don't empathize with anyone, or you empathize with everyone. We currently believe that it's worth sacrificing mice to make people's lives better, but we would do that, we're people. Hopefully, in the future, no living being will have to suffer for any reason. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicting suffering btw. If you want to be held to the standards of dogs, nobody will stop you. I'd like to think I know better.
- astrobe_ 13y ago
  Morality applies between humans. Dogs, bears, sharks have no problem tearing you into pieces if their instincts tell them they have to. Other hunting animals have no problem eating their pray alive if they don't have to kill them first. Animals don't play by our rules. Empathy towards animals really is a side-effect of empathy mechanisms between humans, that we probably need in order to live in society. These side effects shouldn't influence too much your attitude toward animals.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    I disagree. I believe that beings that are capable of feeling pain shouldn't.
- cdi 13y ago
  >so there has to be a line somewhere. And that line is human consciousness. I empathize with humans and animals too(especially mammalian), of course. But I choose not to be swayed by feelings when I think about policy. Preservation of nature doesn't require empathy, and justice among humans doesn't require it after utilitarian principle is chosen. Domesticated animals are born and live for our utility. As long as we don't consider animal pet ownership as equal to slavery, I don't see how animal experimentation is problematic.
  - JabavuAdams 13y ago
    What is "human consciousness"? These are the so-called "suitcase words". They're neat and compact, but once you open the suitcase, you realize you had no idea what was inside.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Human consciousness is entirely arbitrary. There's no definition that will include all humans and only all humans.
    - V-2 13y ago
      "And you my friend, how do you know I am not a fish — you are not I?" ;) It's splitting hairs... Yes of course there is no absolutely precise definition of human consciousness, but it does not mean that the term becomes useless. I can't draw a precise line between a plain and a mountain (where does one start and the other end?), but it does not mean I can never tell about anything that it's not a mountain
      - StavrosK 13y ago
        The term doesn't become useless, but it becomes non-usable where laws and morality are concerned. Should we experiment on cognitively impaired people because they are less intelligent than a dog or a dolphin? How about month-old babies?
        13y ago
Spoygg 13y ago
Apply as a volunteer for those experiments you are also just a mechanism, no?
V-2 13y ago
Essentially everything is electrons flying in the brain. I see animal welfare as a relative value (it does not take precedence over human wellbeing in my opinion), but this particular argument is utterly unconvincing.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
Your human-centric arguments are very weak, as I'll detail below. The more practical danger is one of dehumanization. If there is a legal (not scientific) line that you can neatly draw between human (suffering counts) and non-human (suffering doesn't count), then there will always be pressure to classify undesirables as non-human. This is always there in the background, and if we enable it, humans get abused. So, there is some practical value in being over-protective of creatures even if we don't think they're fully people. Yes, we as a society should figure out what level of suffering we're okay with inflicting to pursue certain goals. It's perfectly legitimate for people to hold the opinion that the right answer is "none". > Misery is electrons flying in the brain. This is irrelevant and dismissive. It does not distinguish between human and non-human misery, unless you believe in some magical human sauce. > Animal is a mechanism. This is not a convincing argument. In my life and studies, I've yet to see a convincing reason why humans are not also mechanisms (assuming a broad enough definition that includes mammals). In other words, humans and mammals are much closer on the mechanism-complexity-spectrum than say rats and mechanical watches. I would not empathize with a single ant's suffering (if it even can), but I would empathize with a dog's suffering. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicting suffering btw. True, but we hold ourselves to a more restrictive standard. > Would you empathize with a computer program simulating pain model Your use of the word "simulating" pre-supposes the conclusion. This is a more problematic case. Part of suffering, I think, is the inability to control the response. I.e. if all humans had the bio-machinery to turn off pain or worry, then it changes the equation. I assume that any computer program that's sufficiently complicated to convince us it's a general AI would also be able to rewrite itself to remove suffering (except by choice). That said, maybe its esoteric and abstract concerns relating to ensuring its survival could cause it suffering.

by cdi 13y ago

StavrosK 13y ago

Humans are animals too, and we empathize with them, so there has to be a line somewhere. You either don't empathize with anyone, or you empathize with everyone. We currently believe that it's worth sacrificing mice to make people's lives better, but we would do that, we're people. Hopefully, in the future, no living being will have to suffer for any reason. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicting suffering btw. If you want to be held to the standards of dogs, nobody will stop you. I'd like to think I know better.

astrobe_ 13y ago
Morality applies between humans. Dogs, bears, sharks have no problem tearing you into pieces if their instincts tell them they have to. Other hunting animals have no problem eating their pray alive if they don't have to kill them first. Animals don't play by our rules. Empathy towards animals really is a side-effect of empathy mechanisms between humans, that we probably need in order to live in society. These side effects shouldn't influence too much your attitude toward animals.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  I disagree. I believe that beings that are capable of feeling pain shouldn't.
cdi 13y ago
>so there has to be a line somewhere. And that line is human consciousness. I empathize with humans and animals too(especially mammalian), of course. But I choose not to be swayed by feelings when I think about policy. Preservation of nature doesn't require empathy, and justice among humans doesn't require it after utilitarian principle is chosen. Domesticated animals are born and live for our utility. As long as we don't consider animal pet ownership as equal to slavery, I don't see how animal experimentation is problematic.
- JabavuAdams 13y ago
  What is "human consciousness"? These are the so-called "suitcase words". They're neat and compact, but once you open the suitcase, you realize you had no idea what was inside.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Human consciousness is entirely arbitrary. There's no definition that will include all humans and only all humans.
  - V-2 13y ago
    "And you my friend, how do you know I am not a fish — you are not I?" ;) It's splitting hairs... Yes of course there is no absolutely precise definition of human consciousness, but it does not mean that the term becomes useless. I can't draw a precise line between a plain and a mountain (where does one start and the other end?), but it does not mean I can never tell about anything that it's not a mountain
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      The term doesn't become useless, but it becomes non-usable where laws and morality are concerned. Should we experiment on cognitively impaired people because they are less intelligent than a dog or a dolphin? How about month-old babies?
      - 13y ago

Spoygg 13y ago

Apply as a volunteer for those experiments you are also just a mechanism, no?

V-2 13y ago

Essentially everything is electrons flying in the brain. I see animal welfare as a relative value (it does not take precedence over human wellbeing in my opinion), but this particular argument is utterly unconvincing.

JabavuAdams 13y ago

Your human-centric arguments are very weak, as I'll detail below. The more practical danger is one of dehumanization. If there is a legal (not scientific) line that you can neatly draw between human (suffering counts) and non-human (suffering doesn't count), then there will always be pressure to classify undesirables as non-human. This is always there in the background, and if we enable it, humans get abused. So, there is some practical value in being over-protective of creatures even if we don't think they're fully people. Yes, we as a society should figure out what level of suffering we're okay with inflicting to pursue certain goals. It's perfectly legitimate for people to hold the opinion that the right answer is "none". > Misery is electrons flying in the brain. This is irrelevant and dismissive. It does not distinguish between human and non-human misery, unless you believe in some magical human sauce. > Animal is a mechanism. This is not a convincing argument. In my life and studies, I've yet to see a convincing reason why humans are not also mechanisms (assuming a broad enough definition that includes mammals). In other words, humans and mammals are much closer on the mechanism-complexity-spectrum than say rats and mechanical watches. I would not empathize with a single ant's suffering (if it even can), but I would empathize with a dog's suffering. > Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicting suffering btw. True, but we hold ourselves to a more restrictive standard. > Would you empathize with a computer program simulating pain model Your use of the word "simulating" pre-supposes the conclusion. This is a more problematic case. Part of suffering, I think, is the inability to control the response. I.e. if all humans had the bio-machinery to turn off pain or worry, then it changes the equation. I assume that any computer program that's sufficiently complicated to convince us it's a general AI would also be able to rewrite itself to remove suffering (except by choice). That said, maybe its esoteric and abstract concerns relating to ensuring its survival could cause it suffering.