You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DanielLC comments on An argument that animals don't really suffer - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Solvent 07 January 2012 09:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanielLC 07 January 2012 05:37:13PM *  7 points [-]

I notice both of the objections to this mention that they don't like the implications (animal "cruelty" is okay) as if it's part of their counter-argument. That's hardly relevant. You might as well argue that animals don't feel pain because that would imply there's no omnipotent, omnibenevolent, god.

Also, they talk about other animals having pre-frontal cortex. This would mean that the argument is more specific than it states, but would still imply that many animals do not feel pain.

Comment author: bogus 07 January 2012 05:50:47PM *  5 points [-]

I notice both of the objections to this mention that they don't like the implications (animal "cruelty" is okay) as if it's part of their counter-argument. That's hardly relevant.

Animal cruelty could be a case where our evolved intuitions mislead us: we feel as if animals are suffering and empathize with them (even though they aren't) because they are visibly in pain. In fact, I assume that most people would feel some mild aversion to animal "cruelty" even if they knew with certainty that the animals in question lack sensory awareness, because our evolved intuitions cannot be overridden without some effort.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 07 January 2012 10:09:31PM 10 points [-]

In fact, I assume that most people would feel some mild aversion to animal "cruelty" even if they knew with certainty that the animals in question lack sensory awareness, because our evolved intuitions cannot be overridden without some effort.

There's a lot of cultural variation there-- the animal fights in the Roman coliseum, bull-fighting,, and bear-baiting are all examples of culturally supported use of animal suffering as part of entertainment.

Comment author: Solvent 08 January 2012 03:37:10AM 3 points [-]

Plus the infamous cat-burning in Paris.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 January 2012 05:13:55AM -2 points [-]

Cat's? They burned cats? Why on earth would they bother burning cats? It's witches, wood or nothing!

Comment author: David_Gerard 07 January 2012 06:09:17PM *  12 points [-]

In fact, I assume that most people would feel some mild aversion to animal "cruelty" even if they knew with certainty that the animals in question lack sensory awareness, because our evolved intuitions cannot be overridden without some effort.

This is why cruelty to animals is useful as an indicator of sociopathy in humans.

Comment author: CronoDAS 08 January 2012 05:30:39AM 3 points [-]

I wonder if torturing Sims is also correlated with sociopathy?

Comment author: MixedNuts 08 January 2012 06:14:20AM 4 points [-]

They may be too few players who don't to test.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 January 2012 06:05:24AM 1 point [-]

My housemate's favourite sim pastime was creating a house for the cast of Buffy and Angel... complete with a graveyard to patrol. Swimming pools without ladders are dangerous apparently.

Comment author: David_Gerard 07 January 2012 06:11:19PM *  2 points [-]

Yes, they're more "this is bogus science and I am disgusted by his conclusions from the bad science" than they are robust philosophical argumentation. As I note above, this is philosophically tainted and not the strongest refutation to give to those who might be convinced by Craig's argumentation; I assume they're assuming their readers are familar with Craig and his habit of starting with the bottom line.

The trouble with the question "does a given animal feel pain?" is the particular usage being applied of the words "feel" and "pain".