Unsupported Assumptions About Human and Animal Suffering

[Mr. Purple]

I've noticed that whenever suffering is brought up, it's always assumed that us humans suffer the most because we are the most self aware or intelligent, and the potential for suffering goes down as it gets further away from us. Why do people assume self awareness or intelligence would have moral relevance at all?

Even people who understand the ability to suffer is what matters ethically still frame it in a way where humans come out as the most important. They say because of this greater self awareness or intelligence, we have a greater capacity to feel deeper emotion and suffering. Where is the support for this? While they are willing to look into how our powerful brains can possibly cause us more suffering than an animal, they seem to overlook how our brains can also mitigate that suffering with coping mechanisms that animals don't have.

Humans, with our abstract thinking, can take pain and suffering and turn it into a positive experience. Having your whole body sore after working out, or going to the dentist, would be far more painful if we didn't have the ability to reframe them as positives and see them in a wider context. We have many examples where people have suffered a great tragedy such as being paralyzed or being diagnosed with terminal illness, and then go on to say it's the best thing that has happened to them because it brought them closer to loved ones or helped them to see what was really important in life. Seeing suffering in a religious context of a trial they will be rewarded for overcoming is another common coping mechanism. Being able to frame the suffering as part of some bigger or more important context makes suffering much easier to manage. This is a tool animals don't have.

Some say the fact we can anticipate the future and can remember our past makes us capable of more suffering. While that's a possibility, It alternatively could allow us to see that suffering as being temporary, and help us imagine the time when it will end.

In extreme cases of our brains reframing an experience, some humans find relief through pain itself (self harm). It seems clear that the power of our brains is not necessarily a liability when it comes to suffering.

I might even go a step further. Putting the human coping mechanisms aside, it seems very plausible to me that animals would feel even more powerful emotions than us humans because that is the core of how they survive. At this point in our evolutionary development, us humans could probably survive successfully with a very minimal pull from emotions because of our brains. We can logically see why we should or shouldn't do something to survive whereas animals still rely solely on their emotions to make those decisions; Therefore, I could see powerful emotions being selected for in animals and weaker emotions being selected for in humans. This very well may not be happening, but if we are going to be making any assumptions, why not make one consistent with evolution?

Anyway, these opinions about humans having more moral relevance seem pretty widely subscribed to by seemingly logical people, but I can't see the justification. Do I have a point, or is there something I am missing?

[brimstoneSalad]

Great post Mr. Purple. Thanks!

If you don't mind, I'm going to wait for some other people to respond first, before doing so myself. I'm interested to hear what everybody says.

[bobo0100]

I've noticed that whenever suffering is brought up, it's always assumed that us humans suffer the most because we are the most self aware or intelligent, and the potential for suffering goes down as it gets further away from us. Why do people assume these things have moral relevance at all?

Because they are. I am assuming a utilitarian mindset. Utilitarianism or the principle of "The greatest good for the greatest number" both intensity of suffering and quantity of sufferers count. In some ways non-human animals are on par with humans such as the ability to feel pain.

Your sort of right about intelligence not enabling us to suffer, however there are ways in which humans suffer that animals do not, such as fulfilling goals. It has been argued that humans are more entitled to the right to life because they have the ability to want to do things in the future, such as writing a masterpiece of literature, or creating artwork's, or starting a career. This however is not a quality that non[human animals have, or at least not the the extent that humans do.

Do you think humans are granted undue moral weight based on there ability to take pain and suffering and make it into a positive experience? I think the example's you have chosen are very carefully selected to argue your point. Is it less immoral to remove a limb from a human, because of there ability to take pain and suffering and make it into a positive experience, or do they get more weight because it would effect there ability to fulfil future life goals?

[Mr. Purple]

It has been argued that humans are more entitled to the right to life because they have the ability to want to do things in the future, such as writing a masterpiece of literature, or creating artwork's, or starting a career. This however is not a quality that non[human animals have, or at least not the the extent that humans do.

I specifically addressed this above. The ability to see into the future is one of our greatest methods of coping with our present suffering. My point is it can go both ways, so what is the justification of only picking the examples that favors us humans?

Do you think humans are granted undue moral weight based on there ability to take pain and suffering and make it into a positive experience? I think the example's you have chosen are very carefully selected to argue your point. Is it less immoral to remove a limb from a human, because of there ability to take pain and suffering and make it into a positive experience, or do they get more weight because it would effect there ability to fulfil future life goals?

I'm only asking for justification for why humans should be weighed higher than animals. People can come up with examples where humans can uniquely suffer, but they ignore the almost more numerous examples where humans can uniquely mitigate their suffering. My point is, I don't think it's an area we know nearly enough about to call.

[Anon0045]

Why do people assume self awareness or intelligence would have moral relevance at all?

I don't, and I agree that we should not be assuming we do. I tried to find a video of someone who in an interview said that animals could potentially suffer more, because they cannot rationalize what is happening to them, but didn't find it.

The idea that an ability to plan for the future is morally relevant seems very arbitrary too and it means that those whose lives are already "good", are valued more. A rich person is valued more, because he/she can do more, plan more, live more. A depressed person would have less value. It's unfair.