Thoughts on Dan Dennett's awful argument for meateating?

[EmperorPalpatine]

So, my bias definitely shines through in the title, but with the recent Sam Harris affair, I decided checking out the opinion of the other "3 horsemen" (Hitchens ), Richard Dawkins is more well known for his comparison of meateating to slavery, however the Daniel Dennet quote I found was rather disheartening considering how much I love his work..

"Consciousness requires a certain kind of informational organization that does not seem to be "hard-wired" in humans, but is instilled by human culture. Moreover, consciousness is not a black-or-white, all-or-nothing type of phenomenon, as is often assumed. The differences between humans and other species are so great that speculations about animal consciousness seem ungrounded. Many authors simply assume that an animal like a bat has a point of view, but there seems to be little interest in exploring the details involved."

This argument against animal consciousness seemed pathetic at best, and I only decided to post about it in spite of how old it is, because of the conversation is can spark. My problem with this is that this quote is supposed to justify animal exploitation and meat eating, however I really don't understand what he was trying to speculate on at the time. Is he saying that pain vary's by intellect? Is he saying that the desire to live exists because of societal conditioning? I'm sincerely confused at this statement, it seems to me, that by simply flicking a rat, and watching it run away in fear, there shouldn't be doubt that animals feel pain and wish to stay alive, anecdotal as that evidence may be, it is definitely reproducible, although please don't go flicking rats.

Am I misinterpreting or taking this quote out of context? I almost hope this is the case, although I guess you can't win them all.

[brimstoneSalad]

Consciousness is a very poor word to use, because it is very ill defined. That seems to be all he was saying.

Dennett knows all of these states of mind exist as a continuum, from the simplest creatures to the most complex.
He also well knows that these same facts apply to human children.

I prefer to talk about sentience, which is demonstrable and much better understood.

I would have to see the quote in the original context to know what the purpose of this was.

[EmperorPalpatine]

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/d ... sness.html It wasn't in the context of veganism to be fair.

I'd have to agree, it's about as problematic as the term natural. Consciousness seems rather undefined, but regardless of what your criteria is, it seems as though it should unanimously agreeable to say that intellect is not required for consciousness. It seems as though his essay was a bit more reasonable than I first thought, although it is still a mediocre at best defense of meat eating.

[brimstoneSalad]

It seems as though his essay was a bit more reasonable than I first thought, although it is still a mediocre at best defense of meat eating.

I just read the whole essay. The only time humans eating meat was mentioned was in comparing the qualia from a turkey vulture's perspective in smelling carrion (rotting chickens), to his own qualia of roasted chicken.

There was no defense of meat eating that I read.

If you didn't read it all, you should read it.

[EmperorPalpatine]

If you didn't read it all, you should read it.

Hah, serves me right, I went through the beginning and skimmed the rest, I'll read the essay in it's entirety, I guess that's a bit of a relief. I don't think Dennett to this day would defend meat eating, at least not in the same way. It's late right now, but thanks!