What makes an animal worthy of our compassion and protection?

[Towlie]

PETA miffed at President Obama's fly "execution" (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55H4Z220090618)

What determines whether an animal is worthy of our compassion and protection, or mere annoying vermin to be exterminated? Is it size? Endangeredness as a species? Intelligence? Cuteness? Utility to man? Danger to man? Why are cats more worthy than rats? Why are dolphins more worthy than sharks? Would PETA protect a mosquito like they protect a fly? What's the rule here?

[AkuManiMani]

PETA miffed at President Obama's fly "execution" (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55H4Z220090618)

What determines whether an animal is worthy of our compassion and protection, or mere annoying vermin to be exterminated? Is it size? Endangeredness as a species? Intelligence? Cuteness? Utility to man? Danger to man? Why are cats more worthy than rats? Why are dolphins more worthy than sharks? Would PETA protect a mosquito like they protect a fly? What's the rule here?

Whether or not they can experience pain and suffering.

[Hokulele]

Flavor.

[Cainkane1]

Dogs and cats provide affection and companionship. Flys provide disease. I like the dogs and cats the best.

[Whiplash]

Well, this ruins a Seinfeld routine. He had one on his TV show one time where he talked about how animal cruelty doesn't seem to apply to insects. And how he felt you could actually go to an animal rights rally or meeting, and hear something like this:

"The only way to stop cruelty to animals (bzzzzzzzzz *smack*) is to boycott these prodcuts!"

(It's the opening standup from "The Doodle" from what I can see)

[Piscivore]

Flavor.
Hear, hear.

...cats provide affection and companionship.
And pest control.

[I'll_buy_that]

“Porkchops and bacon, my two favorite animals.” Homer

“(Lisa) “I’m going to become a vegetarian” (Homer) “Does that mean you’re not going to eat any pork?” “Yes” “Bacon?” “Yes Dad” Ham?” “Dad all those meats come from the same animal” “Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!”"

[Tricky]

Liking humans
Looking like or behaving like humans, e.g. intelligence
Cuteness
Tastiness
Easy for children to draw

[Skeptical Greg]

“Porkchops and bacon, my two favorite animals.” Homer

“(Lisa) “I’m going to become a vegetarian” (Homer) “Does that mean you’re not going to eat any pork?” “Yes” “Bacon?” “Yes Dad” Ham?” “Dad all those meats come from the same animal” “Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!”"


My favorite:

" Butter your bacon Bart . "

[Skeptical Greg]

PETA miffed at President Obama's fly "execution" (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55H4Z220090618)

What determines whether an animal is worthy of our compassion and protection, or mere annoying vermin to be exterminated? Is it size? Endangeredness as a species? Intelligence? Cuteness? Utility to man? Danger to man? Why are cats more worthy than rats? Why are dolphins more worthy than sharks? Would PETA protect a mosquito like they protect a fly? What's the rule here?

The rule is, what engenders the most self righteous indignation ...

[Nogbad]

It is probably not entirely rational but I would think rather ill of someone who killed a snow leopard but found Obama's flyicide fairly innocuous. There are a hell of a lot of flies and none strike me as cute.

Someone who takes pleasure in killing animals even if it is something slimy like frogs disturbs me.

[Hokulele]

To be a bit more serious, it is all about the personal cost/benefit ratio. As Cainkane1 mentioned, flies have more costs associated with them than benefits (disease vs. I can't think of a way I personally benefit from flies). Horses have more benefits than costs.

Mosquitos are one of the few creatures I will go out of my way to actively seek and destroy.


ETA: When the cost/benefit ratio approaches 1 (such as dolphins), Tricky's list kicks in. By the way, ticks are about a 12 on the ratio.

[realpaladin]

Makes it 'worthy'? Nothing.

I am kind of random in that. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. Cockroaches I don't like. I kill a few every day.

[Psi Baba]

I will say this: No member of PETA is worthy of anyone's compassion or protection. Now where are those Daleks when you need them. :cool:

[Piscivore]

Makes it 'worthy'? Nothing.

I am kind of random in that. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. Cockroaches I don't like. I kill a few every day.

You're just trying to get in Luciana's good graces. :)

[RandFan]

I think an animal ought to be able to appreciate his or her life before we start even considering whether or not to add them to the circle (see Peter Singer's expanding circle).

[realpaladin]

You're just trying to get in Luciana's good graces. :)

What's a Luciana? And am I? Do I like that? Why do I like that?

And to make matters worse... every time I come back from India, the first thing I do is get me a laaaarge coffee at Starbucks and a Double Whopper at Burgerking on Schiphol...

But seriously, I am not into mindlessly killing animals, but I do not go out of my way to find all of them cute and cuddly.

As an Askari once said to me "When the lion aims to kill a wildebeast, he does not apologize to the ants he crushes."

Mind you, we were eating roasted larva while he said that to me.

[plumjam]

I can't think of a way I personally benefit from flies...
Not having your husband's dingle-dangle act as an anti-mingle device at book launches.

[phantomb]

My opinion expressed in rhyme:

If it isn't sapient and self-aware, why the heck should I care?

When an animal is lacking in theory of mind, compassion and protection are frankly too kind.

[Piscivore]

What's a Luciana? And am I? Do I like that? Why do I like that?
You haven't met Luciana? She is one of our best, nicest, and loveliest posters. She's also deathly afraid of roaches.

As an Askari once said to me "When the lion aims to kill a wildebeast, he does not apologize to the ants he crushes."

That sounds a lot like the Bush/Cheney foreign policy.

[Hokulele]

Not having your husband's dingle-dangle act as an anti-mingle device at book launches.


Two words: Board shorts.

[The_Animus]

If you have a good amount of time on your hands and want to see some very good discussion regarding the rights of animals vs humans and what justifies this I would suggest reading this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145164

You might want to skip the first 2 pages.

[Cavemonster]

Compassion and protection are two separate things.

Compassion, I think is an automatic emotional response. It may come as a result of your mental model of a particular animal, which you construct partly rationally, but the feeling of compassion isn't a logical point you arrive at.

Protection can stem from compassion, and often does, but there are a good number of other reasons, many of which are explored above. It boils down to this-
Does this animal provide benefits to me, or humans in general in the short run or the broader view? If yes, it's worth preserving.

Our world is tightly interconnected, to the point where killing off an annoying insect could lead down the line to overgrowth of other annoying animals or plants, or the death of useful or pleasant species. There's a law of unintended consequences that suggests that until we have a perfect understanding of all ecosystems, it isn't a bad idea to try to prevent any extinctions.

So really you don't need to look beyond an intelligent self interest to find good reasons to preserve animals.

1) We emotionally respond to it, so preserving it makes us feel good.
2) We directly benefit from it, so preserving it serves us.
3) We indirectly benefit (or we may, or species that we like or find useful do) so preserving it creates situations that serve us.

[Tricky]

Two words: Board shorts.
What has The Pith Award got to do with this?

[RandFan]

In all seriousness I had compassion and provided protection for the rabbits and chickens my family raised for slaughter.

[Wally]

I will say this: No member of PETA is worthy of anyone's compassion or protection. Now where are those Daleks when you need them. :cool:

But their bread makes good samiches;)

[CelticRose]

When an animal is lacking in theory of mind, compassion and protection are frankly too kind.
So, you wouldn't extend compassion or protection to people with Asperger's or autism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind_impairment_in_autism#Autism

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would imagine there are two sources for our judgments upon the animal kingdom. First would be in our genes directing which animals we are more empathetic to and second would be culture. That's why the idea of eating guinea pigs (eaten in Peru) and puppies (eaten in China) is rather appalling to us while eating cows and killing rats is appalling to certain sects in India.

Going so far as to consider swatting a fly cruel is absolutely ludicrous according to my culture and genes and it bothers me not to say so.

Interesting side note: We are one of the few world cultures that don't eat a lot of insects.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether or not they can experience pain and suffering.I'm skeptical of this conclusion. I can think of all number of exceptions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Flavor.Much closer to reality, IMO. I would only add perceived edibility to flavor. There are a lot of cultural differences regarding edibility that probably prevents tasting a number of candidates.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is probably not entirely rational but I would think rather ill of someone who killed a snow leopard but found Obama's flyicide fairly innocuous. There are a hell of a lot of flies and none strike me as cute.

Someone who takes pleasure in killing animals even if it is something slimy like frogs disturbs me.I'm not clear here. Are you disturbed by people smooshing insects?

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Cockroaches I don't like. I kill a few every day.
You should consider removing their food sources, maybe you would see fewer of them.

[Cavemonster]

Interesting side note: We are one of the few world cultures that don't eat a lot of insects.

We may not eat a lot, but we if you eat artificially colored foods at all, you probably eat some Cochineal, red dye made from insects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal#Usage

And that's just what they put in intentionally. Unintentionally, there's a whole lot more bug in your breakfast.


CHOCOLATE AND CHOCOLATE LIQUOR
Insect filth: Average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined OR any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments

Rodent filth: Average is 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams in 6 100-gram subsamples examined OR any 1 subsample contains 3 or more rodent hairs

CITRUS FRUIT JUICES, CANNED
Insects and insect eggs: 5 or more Drosophila and other fly eggs per 250 ml or 1 or more maggots per 250 ml

RED FISH AND OCEAN PERCH
Parasites: 3% of the fillets examined contain 1 or more parasites accompanied by pus pockets

MACARONI AND NOODLE PRODUCTS
Insect filth: Average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples

Rodent filth: Average of 4.5 rodent hairs or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples

PEANUT BUTTER
Insect filth: Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams

Rodent filth: Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams

POPCORN
Rodent filth: 1 or more rodent excreta pellets are found in 1 or more subsamples, and 1 or more rodent hairs are found in 2 or more other subsamples OR 2 or more rodent hairs per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples OR 20 or more gnawed grains per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples

WHEAT FLOUR
Insect filth: Average of 75 or more insect fragments per 50 grams

Rodent filth: Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams

[realpaladin]

You haven't met Luciana? She is one of our best, nicest, and loveliest posters. She's also deathly afraid of roaches.
Hmmm, so I will refrain from posting pics of the 2 Inch buggers here...

That sounds a lot like the Bush/Cheney foreign policy.
:D

[phantomb]

So, you wouldn't extend compassion or protection to people with Asperger's or autism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind_impairment_in_autism#Autism

People with Asperger's and people who are autistic are still light years ahead of a fly, but to answer the real question here, yes, I think there is a point where a Human would be so brain damaged that we should no longer consider them to be a person. For example, we now have medical life support equipment which can resuscitate and maintain the bodily functions of someone who is brain dead.

The only reason I can think of why we would want to extend compassion and protection to a brain dead person on life support is the same reason I don't think most animals deserve compassion and protection but still support laws against animal cruelty. Namely, torturing animals and killing brain dead people is an unhealthy thing to allow people to do.

[Skeptic Ginger]

We may not eat a lot, but we if you eat artificially colored foods at all, you probably eat some Cochineal, red dye made from insects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal#Usage

And that's just what they put in intentionally. Unintentionally, there's a whole lot more bug in your breakfast.For the pedantic among us, I should have said we are one of the few cultures that don't eat a lot of insects as the main course. I knew about the insect parts in your food. Didn't know insects were a source of food dye.

[Cavemonster]

For the pedantic among us, I should have said we are one of the few cultures that don't eat a lot of insects as the main course. I knew about the insect parts in your food. Didn't know insects were a source of food dye.

I'm just a fan of the fact that the official term is "Insect filth"

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm just a fan of the fact that the official term is "Insect filth"And I work hard to repress the memories. ;)

[Dysphemist]

I'm not clear here. Are you disturbed by people smooshing insects?

People gaining pleasure from killing animals, is what he is disturbed by. I am too - even if it is a 10 year old kid pulling the wings and legs off a fly, and then laughing when it just squirms around not being able to move.

[realpaladin]

For the pedantic among us, I should have said we are one of the few cultures that don't eat a lot of insects as the main course. I knew about the insect parts in your food. Didn't know insects were a source of food dye.

Which is our loss really... now if I only could win the argument on putting powdered sugar on pan fried caterpillars... but they keep looking at me like I am crazy.

[Modified]

People gaining pleasure from killing animals, is what he is disturbed by. I am too - even if it is a 10 year old kid pulling the wings and legs off a fly, and then laughing when it just squirms around not being able to move.

If that pleasure is based on "revenge" though, it is not disturbing. If a fly has been pestering someone, I expect them to take some pleasure in killing it. Pulling off body parts would be something else entirely.

[AkuManiMani]

Whether or not they can experience pain and suffering.

I'm skeptical of this conclusion. I can think of all number of exceptions.

What is it about this statement you're skeptical of? If the critter in question cannot experience suffering of any kind then questions of having compassion for it are as absurd as proposing moral rights for pebbles.

[Towlie]

If a fly has been pestering someone, I expect them to take some pleasure in killing it. Pulling off body parts would be something else entirely.But if you do enjoy pulling the wings off flies, the device that PETA sent to the President could come in handy. ;)

The group (PETA) has sent Obama a device that traps a fly so it can then be released outside.

On the other hand, you could leave the wings on and build yourself one of these:

http://www.smacaw.com/flyplane/flyplane.jpg

[bokonon]

I think for most people, it's primarily an emotional thing. If it has mammalian eyes, we feel more of an attachment.

The "sentience and self-preservation" argument falls flat with me. If cockroaches aren't self-aware and committed to preservation, why do they run and hide when the lights come on and the foot stomps down? Even bacteria swim toward food and away from threats, if they can.

We just captured a kitten and brought it inside, mostly because it was cute and we felt sorry for it. Turns out the kitten got pregnant before losing its baby teeth, the little strumpet. So now we're a few days (or a couple of weeks, max) away from being rewarded for our compassion.

The most I've ever done for an insect or arachnid is carry it outside rather than crushing it.

I think it's the eyes...

[Skeptic Ginger]

People gaining pleasure from killing animals, is what he is disturbed by. I am too - even if it is a 10 year old kid pulling the wings and legs off a fly, and then laughing when it just squirms around not being able to move.That's a bit different than elimination with a swat.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is it about this statement you're skeptical of? If the critter in question cannot experience suffering of any kind then questions of having compassion for it are as absurd as proposing moral rights for pebbles.How about fish? Do you disagree with catch and release fishing? A lot of people have no issue with catch and release fishing ignoring the fact the fish might feel pain.

Do you know much about the subjective sensation of pain in plants or insects? Or are you just assuming they have none?

Here's a fascinating article that at least should stimulate one's imagination to think outside the concept that if you've seen how one brain/body system works, you've seen them all:

Fine-tuned plant response to insect attack. (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fine-tuned+plant+response+to+insect+attack-a020121850)A caterpillar takes a chew of tobacco leaf. Then another. And another. A wasp appears and plants its stinger in the caterpillar, which eventually becomes food for the wasp's offspring.

There's more to this encounter than meets the eye. Prompted by spittle spittle from the caterpillar, the wounded tobacco plant lofts a chemical scent into the air that tells the parasitic wasps where to find a nice, juicy meal. Even after the caterpillar has been removed, the wasps home in on a plant that has just been attacked.

"They don't just fly around at random until they bump into it," says James H. Tumlinson of the Department of Agriculture's research service in Gainesville, Fla.

Tumlinson and his coworkers are studying the chemical volleying that goes on between many plants and insects, whether enemies or allies. They have now found that plants customize the chemical SOS they emit, alerting the particular wasp that specializes in preying on the offending caterpillar. Consuelo M. De Moraes of the University of Georgia Organization in Tifton reported the new findings at this week's meeting in Nashville of the Entomological Society of America.

I don't disagree the kind of rationalizing you describe goes on. And I'm not particularly disturbed by the idea my celery might hurt when I chew it. I am merely pointing out your statement is an oversimplification of a moral question.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well my dogs just caught a mole. I put it in a paper cup with a plastic lid and tied that inside a plastic bag. I hope CO2 intoxication and hypoxia will just put it painlessly to sleep. I certainly didn't want to smash it. Too messy. And I'm annoyed at the holes in my yard the moles dig and the dogs make worse going after them. I could break an ankle running in the yard now.

I could have taken the stupid critter far away and released it. But I didn't feel like exerting the effort. I have done this in the past with mice. Maybe if it is still alive in the morning I will.

[slingblade]

Short answer:

They are worthy when we say they are, and unworthy when we say they are.

Pretty much all there is to it. :D

[realpaladin]

Short answer:

They are worthy when we say they are, and unworthy when we say they are.

Pretty much all there is to it. :D

Amen.

[Psi Baba]

Didn't know insects were a source of food dye.
Ever see a bottle of Campari? Guess how they get it to look like that.

[AkuManiMani]

How about fish? Do you disagree with catch and release fishing? A lot of people have no issue with catch and release fishing ignoring the fact the fish might feel pain.

I'm pretty sure that whatever the fish experiences when snared, it can't be very pleasant. Either way, being caught and released must be preferable to being killed and eaten.

Do you know much about the subjective sensation of pain in plants or insects? Or are you just assuming they have none?

I don't know either way whether plants or arthropods experience pain comparable to our own suffering. All I am sure of is that if I don't eat some other critter that was once alive I will suffer pretty badly and die myself.

Here's a fascinating article that at least should stimulate one's imagination to think outside the concept that if you've seen how one brain/body system works, you've seen them all:

Fine-tuned plant response to insect attack. (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fine-tuned+plant+response+to+insect+attack-a020121850)/QUOTE]


Thanks. That was a pretty interesting read :)

Its questions like these that make the whole issue of consciousness very fascinating to me. If we could figure out what entities are conscious, and understand the nature of subjective experiences and sensations, it would better inform our ethics. Perhaps a long time down the line we could develop technologies that would allow us to grow foods that don't require the needless suffering of other creatures -- who knows?

[QUOTE=skeptigirl;4833618]I don't disagree the kind of rationalizing you describe goes on. And I'm not particularly disturbed by the idea my celery might hurt when I chew it. I am merely pointing out your statement is an oversimplification of a moral question.

I didn't mean to simplify the issue; I was just pointing out the necessarily requisite to any moral consideration.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm pretty sure that whatever the fish experiences when snared, it can't be very pleasant. Either way, being caught and released must be preferable to being killed and eaten.Are there any studies on how many of those released fish die a slow death from infection afterward? Personally, and spoken as a person with lots of meat in my diet so I'm not one who has qualms eating animals, I think catching fish you don't intend to eat is as bad as getting enjoyment from pulling wings off flies.


I don't know either way whether plants or arthropods experience pain comparable to our own suffering. All I am sure of is that if I don't eat some other critter that was once alive I will suffer pretty badly and die myself.My point had nothing to do with killing animals, it had to do with imagining the ones you choose to kill must not feel pain. Seems like a convenient but not necessarily valid rationale.

I didn't mean to simplify the issue; I was just pointing out the necessarily requisite to any moral consideration.Like a soldier dehumanizes the enemy before killing one?

I don't doubt people use such rationales. But I do doubt the animal's nervous system is really being carefully considered by many people in deciding on which critters deserve empathy.

[AkuManiMani]

Like a soldier dehumanizes the enemy before killing one?

I don't doubt people use such rationales. But I do doubt the animal's nervous system is really being carefully considered by many people in deciding on which critters deserve empathy.

Like some others have mentioned earlier, the cuteness factor seems to be a big rationale. For others its the taste factor. Ironically enough, a friend of mine was approached on campus one day by vegans handing out pamphlets on animal cruelty. A good portion of the pamphlet detailed the inhumane treatment of calves to produce veal. My friend, who grew up in a Pakistani household, had never before tried or even heard of veal. So the next time our group of friends met up to eat at a local diner he decided to try veal for the first time -- all thanks to the proselytizing efforts of our vegan friends.

*ahem*

Anywho... My original response was in reference to the title of the thread:

"What makes an animal worthy of our compassion and protection?"

I just think that the first hurdle is whether or not the animal in question can experience suffering. I agree that this probably isn't taken into consideration by many people but, IMO, its the most rational starting point :)

[BTW, he really enjoyed the veal :p ]

[Elaedith]

Most animals including fish and invertebrates have noiception but that the conscious experience of pain (like other conscious experience) and the associated negative emotions are thought to depend largely on the cortex. Since the cortex is more developed in mammals than other classes of animals it would be reasonable to assume that mammals have more capacity for conscious suffering. Fish have little cortex so I don't see why it is unreasonable to assume they have less capacity for conscious suffering than mammals.

When it comes to abortion, a large percentage of people don't seem to have any problem believing in different degrees of worth and associated rights to protection based on level of nervous system development, even within the same species. Is this irrational?

[CrikeyBobs]

Short answer:

They are worthy when we say they are, and unworthy when we say they are.

Pretty much all there is to it. :D

Yup, and like gods, we can be capricious. Wasp in my house? Die Die Die! Little speck of nothing crawling around my wash basin? I'll wash my hands later, once you've moved on. :boggled:

[linusrichard]

Short answer:

They are worthy when we say they are, and unworthy when we say they are.

Pretty much all there is to it. :D

Yes. The question gets easier when you realize that (unless you take the view of a group like PETA) it's not about protecting animals' rights to compassion and protection, but about humans' interest in extending compassion and protection to animals.

Why does a dog have a right to not be killed for food (in this country, anyway), while a pig doesn't? Hard question, but the wrong question. Why do we kill pigs for food but not dogs? Better question - because people like to make friends with dogs and eat pigs.

(ETA: I chose pigs and dogs for my example because some in this thread are talking about intelligence and capacity for suffering, etc., and it is my understanding that a pig is pretty close to a dog in terms of intelligence, if not actually more intelligent.)

[Kotatsu]

Dogs and cats provide affection and companionship. Flys provide disease. I like the dogs and cats the best.

Dogs and cats provide intestinal parasites and nasty bites and scratches. Flies provide food for pretty birds and pollinate beautiful flowers. I like the birds and flowers best.

[paiute]

"What are you?"
"I'm an otter."
"And what do you do?"
"I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands."
"You're free to go. "

"What are you?"
"I'm a cow."
"Get in the back of the truck."
"But I'm an animal..."
"You're a baseball glove!"
"...but I'm an animal I have rights!"
"Yeah right - [indicates leather jacket]- here's your f%&$ing cousin, get in the back of the truck!"

- Dennis Leary. No Cure for Cancer

[I Ratant]

In animals vs humans, the animals always lose.
But I'm astounded to see -performing- killer whales at the sea circuses!
Who wudda thunk?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Most animals including fish and invertebrates have noiception but that the conscious experience of pain (like other conscious experience) and the associated negative emotions are thought to depend largely on the cortex. Since the cortex is more developed in mammals than other classes of animals it would be reasonable to assume that mammals have more capacity for conscious suffering. Fish have little cortex so I don't see why it is unreasonable to assume they have less capacity for conscious suffering than mammals.You've demonstrated my point that we make false assumptions about animals based on human perspectives, not in over anthropomorphizing, but in under anthropomorphizing. Why should there be only one evolved mechanism for experiencing something as important as pain?

Do fishes have nociceptors? Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1691351&blobtype=pdf)This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort.
An HSUS Report: Fish and Pain Perception (http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/welfare/fish_and_pain.html)After reviewing the current scientific evidence and exploring the many arguments, it is irrefutably substantiated that fish are capable of experiencing pain.The evidence for pain in fish: the use of morphine as an analgesic (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T48-48TMFB5-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=941068970&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7b5e0210b1b726064c5d9bd0f825caa9)Administering morphine significantly reduced the pain-related behaviours and opercular beat rate and thus morphine appears to act as an analgesic in the rainbow trout. It is concluded that these pain-related behaviours are not simple reflexes and therefore there is the potential for pain perception in fish.



When it comes to abortion, a large percentage of people don't seem to have any problem believing in different degrees of worth and associated rights to protection based on level of nervous system development, even within the same species. Is this irrational?Because an abortion is painful, anesthetics are used. The fetus would benefit just the same.

As for the worth issue, I doubt vegetarians are in the majority so we can assume a large percentage of people have no issue with killing for a reason. You may disagree with the reasons, but the analogy otherwise fails.

[Elaedith]

You've demonstrated my point that we make false assumptions about animals based on human perspectives, not in over anthropomorphizing, but in under anthropomorphizing. Why should there be only one evolved mechanism for experiencing something as important as pain?

I didn't say there was only one evolved mechanism for experiencing pain, and I did not say that fish do not experience pain. I said it would be reasonable to conclude that they have less capacity for conscious suffering than mammals, based on what we know about the nervous system. Nothing in the articles cited points to this being a 'false assumption'.

As for the worth issue, I doubt vegetarians are in the majority so we can assume a large percentage of people have no issue with killing for a reason. You may disagree with the reasons, but the analogy otherwise fails.

I don't think so. Many people appear to believe that it is acceptable to have an abortion at a particular time for a particular reason, and not acceptable to have an abortion later in time for exactly the same reason, or to kill an infant for exactly the same reason.

[Ron_Tomkins]

...
Looking like or behaving like humans, e.g. intelligence...


A cat looking like a human being? How is that ever possible?
http://www.philosophiste.com/images/LOLCATS.gif