tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (10/13/85)
[]
Advocates of vegetarianism often appeal to a general moral principle
that proscribes the unnecessary infliction of suffering. This
newsgroup, of course, is not the place to dispute the legitimacy of
that moral principle. There are, however, some interesting biological
questions associated with the application of it. In particular, do we
have very much understanding of how developed a central nervous system
an organism would have to have to be capable of suffering?
I am no biologist, but I imagine that the nervous systems of mammals
are sufficiently similar to permit the inference that the none are
spared the experience of intense pain. But what about fish? Are the
structures which are involved in pain in mammals even present in fish?
As I understand it, fish "brains" are quite rudimentary, amounting to
little more than a large ganglion. Chickens, too, are widely killed
and consumed. How "sophisticated" is the nervous system of a chicken,
compared to that of a mammal?
How plausible is the claim that any organism that can be classically
conditioned is necessarily capable of suffering? In my view, the
moral dispute needs more empirical basis, which is why I am posting
this.
Todd Moody | {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody
Philosophy Department |
St. Joseph's U. | "I couldn't fail to
Philadelphia, PA 19131 | disagree with you less."alan@sun.uucp (Alan Marr) (10/16/85)
In article <2375@sjuvax.UUCP> tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) writes: >Advocates of vegetarianism often appeal to a general moral principle >that proscribes the unnecessary infliction of suffering. >... In particular, do we >have very much understanding of how developed a central nervous system >an organism would have to have to be capable of suffering? > >... Are the >structures which are involved in pain in mammals even present in fish? >As I understand it, fish "brains" are quite rudimentary, amounting to >little more than a large ganglion. >... How "sophisticated" is the nervous system of a chicken, >compared to that of a mammal? > >How plausible is the claim that any organism that can be classically >conditioned is necessarily capable of suffering? In my view, the >moral dispute needs more empirical basis, which is why I am posting >this. > >Todd Moody | {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody >Philosophy Department | >St. Joseph's U. | "I couldn't fail to >Philadelphia, PA 19131 | disagree with you less." There will be a genetic engineering solution to the moral problems associated with eating meat, i.e. animals with the pertinent brain functions absent. Which makes me wonder if single cell cultivation could be made economic enough on a large scale (industrial meat), that might also remove the objections against meat eating. --- {ucbvax,decwrl}!sun!alan "Extraordinary how potent cheap music is." Noel Coward
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (10/17/85)
> Advocates of vegetarianism often appeal to a general moral principle > that proscribes the unnecessary infliction of suffering. ... > In particular, do we > have very much understanding of how developed a central nervous system > an organism would have to have to be capable of suffering? > > I am no biologist, but I imagine that the nervous systems of mammals > are sufficiently similar to permit the inference that the none are > spared the experience of intense pain. But what about fish? Are the > structures which are involved in pain in mammals even present in fish? > As I understand it, fish "brains" are quite rudimentary, amounting to > little more than a large ganglion. I have over 200 gallons of aquarium in my house. These are populated with dozens of individuals from several species. They demonstrate behaviour consistent with the belief that they feel pain and suffer. All aquarists loose some fish from time to time. Watching one slowly die gives ample oportunity to watch distress behaviour, confusion, anxiety, etc. When I first started raising fish I thought of them as cold, wet, dumb things. I now think of them as warm (tropicals! 82 degrees!), wet, inteligent friends. The most startling experience for me was to discover that fish will yawn and stretch when sleepy/bored! I have watched this behaviour many times and it is unmistakeable. They may be more primitive than we are, but perhaps we have more in common with fish than we have suspected. They show many of our social behaviours, including friendship formation, aggression, teritoriality, even mating for life in some species. Most of these behaviours show wide variation in incedence with species. Goldfish (big ones, about 500 grams) and Oscars are my favorite for complex behaviours. Chickens may be dumb, but all fish are not. BTW, I still eat fish. I just feel more guilty about it now ... -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/25/85)
I believe the SPCA has some specific guidelines on this issue, designed to be used to determine whether certain behavior is "cruel" or not. A call to your local office or representative should produce a copy of such info. I recall reading, many years ago, some such criteria; I do not believe that it had much scientific basis, but was more subjective (e.g., the usual concept of "the farther away an organism is from human, the less that anything that happens to it matters"). The net result was that they cared about mammals and birds, and not much else. (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong... :-) It usually works out so that our usual behavior is approved as being all right -- eating raw (living) oysters, cooking lobsters/crayfish while they are still alive, catching fish with hooks and then releasing them, etc. No point in "rocking the boat", as it were... I'm not "holier-than-thou" about this -- I admit to doing (or eating the result of) the above. However I believe that I am not a hypocrite about it -- life is pain, and we live by causing pain and misery to other things. It is inevitable. We can avoid gratuitous pain-causing, though. Will PS -- this reminds me of something I heard in some PBS program about fish or fisheries -- there is a fish called the "grunt". It is called that because of the sound it makes when the fishermen pull the hook out. (It is caught commercially.) Hell, I'd grunt, too! WM