What about insects?

[stupidmeateater]

@brimstonesalad

I read your link. youre basically discussing the trolley problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem (and PETA and feminism etc).
I disagree with your position
(just one quote:
Why?

In the example of the fat man pushed in front of the easily stopped train to save the people down the track, the fat man is basically minding his own business; it's troubling to select somebody from a normal social situation and sentence him or her to death to save others.

In this case, the fat man is monopolizing a life saving resource in an emergency situation, and dooming five other people to die. Or even ten children, if you want.
He's saving himself.

It's relatively non-controversial that life-boat resources should be dedicated to where they will do the most good and save the most lives, as they were designed.?)
Its not up to you to decide which life is better or more valuable to save. Lets stay with your example: the fat guy is a sientist, who will discover the cure for cancer in the future. One of the children you save by killing the fat guy will grow up to become a mass murderer. By killing the fat guy you cause harm (not only to the fat guy). You dont have the right to make this decision, because you dont have all the information you need to make this decision. You cant see into the future. You dont know how many people you save by killing the fat man, and you dont know how many people you save, by saving the children. Therefore youre doomed to inaction.
This problem isnt just theoretical. I studied law. And this problem is one of the first they teach you at (german) universities. In germany you would be sentenced for murder if you kill the fat guy and go free for doing nothing.
two reasons:
1) its not up to you to make this decision (see above)
2) inaction is sth different than action. If you actively do sth you need a better justification for doing so, than for doing nothing.

And that was exactely my main problem I had with all you said before and veganatheist said in the video. Who are you to decide whats right or wrong? who are you to decide wether its better, to kill a plant than a worm (still waiting for the proof that a worm has more sentience than a plant)? Who are you to decide that this animal shouldnt be killed and the other one should?
As long as youre not 100% certain youre morally not allowed to make this decisions.
And even if youre able to make this decisions, how can I make this decision? Im absolutely hesitant. I dont know what happens if I kill this ant or let this ant live (butterfly effect). What if i prevent world war 3 by killing the ant? What if the only way to save the universe, is to slaughter 10 million cows a day, to make it possible for the one special person to be born?
I hope you understand that these are exaggerations. But my main question is: How can I decide what i have to do to cause as little harm as possible, without knowing the future?

[stupidmeateater]

mites are arachnida.

Arachnida is a class that both spiders and mites are a part of. Mites are part of the subclass Acari, spiders are not. This means they are not the same thing, merely part of the same class.

I checked that . And youre correct.. in english... In german we call arachnida (translated) spider animals, and what you call spiders "weaving spiders", to distinguish this spiders from other spiders like mites... but it doesnt answer my question. and you said you couldnt.

[brimstoneSalad]

In regards to why an aphid is less sentient than a lady bug, I don't know. Insect sentience is rather confusing and this issue would probably be better addressed by brimstoneSalad. I apologize for the inconvenience.

You can figure that out.
We have proof that animals like chickens, dogs, pigs, cats, cows, and humans are sentient. We also know plants and sponges and the like have no means by which to be even slightly sentient.
Many other creatures, since they haven't been specifically tested, are a grey area.

For lack of direct evidence about lady bugs specifically, how do we make educated guesses about their level of sentience?
And why is an educated guess morally meaningful?

I read your link. youre basically discussing the trolley problem

The thread is a lot more than the trolley problem. It's about consequentialism, and the flaws of deontology. Please read more.

You dont have the right to make this decision, because you dont have all the information you need to make this decision. You cant see into the future. You dont know how many people you save by killing the fat man, and you dont know how many people you save, by saving the children. Therefore youre doomed to inaction.

You need to study some medicine instead of law.
If you administer the antibiotic, what if the patient is allergic? You could kill him. But if you don't, he may die too. And if the patient is not allergic, it will save his life.

What do you do?
Are doctors doomed to inaction?

What you're talking about is analysis paralysis, and it's a serious problem for many people.
This is related to the question about lady bugs, because it also relates to the unknown.

Doctors make decisions based on educated guesses and probability. And they kill a lot of people that way. But they also save a lot more people.

If this person has a 1% chance of being allergic and dying, and a 90% chance of dying without the antibiotic, you administer the antibiotic.
You made your best guess, which is morally all you can do because you aren't omniscient.

Your patient may go on to be a mass murderer, but probably won't. Again, probability.

If you didn't know, and you had no reasonable means of knowing, and you acted as well as you could given the information at hand (with as much information as you can get), then it wasn't your fault.

But my main question is: How can I decide what i have to do to cause as little harm as possible, without knowing the future?

First, you must educate yourself as much as possible. Learn everything you can. Without knowledge, you will not be able to make an informed choice, and that would be irresponsible (negligent). Like a doctor who doesn't know about the probability of negative reactions and can't evaluate risk/benefit for treatment -- that would be malpractice, and being uneducated about the world is moral malpractice for us.

Next, you must control for your biases: this is hard. If you're trying to decide whether to kill a cow or a dog, and you personally like dogs as pets and like hamburgers to eat, you have to recognize that your natural bias is in favor of the dog and against the cow. In these situations, you should seek out third party advice: Such as a vegetarian who is not a "dog person", so there will be as little bias as possible. It can also be useful to survey multiple people (who all have all of the information and as little bias as possible) and average the results.

Finally, once you have collected the information and can evaluate the probability of harm with as much info as possible and as little bias as possible, you make the best choice possible given that situation and the data at hand.

You won't always be right, but most of the time you will be -- or, at least as right as you could reasonably be expected to be.
Even if you are unlucky, and your actions have negative consequences instead of positive ones, YOU still made the most moral choice you could given your limitations, which is the extent of your responsibility.
Asking somebody to be omniscient is like criticizing somebody for being immoral for not being superman and flying into the sky to stop a plane crash with his or her bare hands. It's just not possible, and as mortals we can only do the best we can do given our limits.

[stupidmeateater]

In regards to why an aphid is less sentient than a lady bug, I don't know. Insect sentience is rather confusing and this issue would probably be better addressed by brimstoneSalad. I apologize for the inconvenience.

You can figure that out.
We have proof that animals like chickens, dogs, pigs, cats, cows, and humans are sentient. We also know plants and sponges and the like have no means by which to be even slightly sentient.
Many other creatures, since they haven't been specifically tested, are a grey area.

why do we know that plants have no sentience?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... n-internet
Even if you disagree with that article. How can you state that there is absolutely no chance that plants have sentience? Are you sure youre not making the same fallacy descartes did 300 years ago, saying that animals are only biological machines? (veganatheist video 4:00)

your "doctor" problem is completely different from the trolley problem. 1) you dont choose which person to kill (which is the core of the problem, and youre not allowed to choose, therefore inaction) 2) he would die anyway 3) there is usually some sort of consent by the patient (or the relatives).
it would be some sort of trolley problem if the doctor knew, that the patient will become a mass murderer and he then decides, wether to give him the medication or not, not based on the needs of the patient, but only considering the possible outcome, if he cures that patient.
in this case its of course the other way round... the doctor cant refuse to help the patient (hyppocratic oath).

Im not asking you to be omniscient. Im asking you how you can justify your claims/actions without being omniscient. You answered that in the trolley problem and I disagree. I dont think we will ever reach an agreement, since our answers to this basic problem are so different.
But now Im able to understand what veganatheist said in the video.
Thanks for your time and patience.

[brimstoneSalad]

why do we know that plants have no sentience?

The link you provided (and any about "plant intelligence") are yellow journalism. Many species of worm aren't even sentient -- the line is not at plants, but between some animals and others.

Plants don't have the necessary biology to process information with true intelligence and true learning (no brain, no nerve clusters, etc.). They can only be chemically sensitized in a systemic way, and act based on reflex modulated by that sensitization.
This results in incredibly elaborate behaviors that look "intelligent" to the layman, but are comparable to a well designed machine.

We would need to discover something analogous to a brain structure in terms of speed and efficacy of information processing for plants to possibly be sentient.

Oysters are a great example. I say they are probably not sentient -- and when I say probably, I mean something like 99.9% chance non-sentient.
The only reason they even might be is because they have nerve clusters that could possibly (as far as we know) maybe support marginal sentience, this is still a very long shot (it takes a certain number of nerves to engage in the true learning required to be sentient). In addition to this, like plants, they are non-motile in their environments, so they don't have an evolutionary need; sentience would be vestigial, and it's too expensive for simple organisms that don't need to be sentient to expend resources on. This makes it improbable for them to be sentient, so it's a safer assumption that oysters are not.

Anyway, the point is that a large number of animals are not sentient. Plants aren't even in question right now since unlike animals they don't even have the tools to possibly be sentient (and not all animals necessarily even take advantage of those tools).

Are you sure youre not making the same fallacy descartes did 300 years ago, saying that animals are only biological machines? (veganatheist video 4:00)

Yes. This was an assumption on the part of Descartes that was not supported by observational or experimental evidence or sound reasoned logic.

your "doctor" problem is completely different from the trolley problem. 1) you dont choose which person to kill (which is the core of the problem, and youre not allowed to choose, therefore inaction) 2) he would die anyway 3) there is usually some sort of consent by the patient (or the relatives).

2) No, this is not certain. It's an analysis of risk/benefit. Even in serious situations, people can recover without treatment. This is a serious issue in medicine, when the treatment is dangerous: Treat or not treat?
3) Consent is not always available.

As to #1, as I explained in the trolley problem, there is an issue of social contract and law. This is distinct from, but related to, moral issues. The issue of punishment has to be taken into account in the equation.

If you can accept #2 and #3, we could discuss this point. There are also important psychological factors we could discuss: that is, guilt.

However, the important point of that example was to demonstrate that action in the case of uncertainty is based on probability and risk analysis.

it would be some sort of trolley problem if the doctor knew, that the patient will become a mass murderer and he then decides, wether to give him the medication or not, not based on the needs of the patient, but only considering the possible outcome, if he cures that patient.
in this case its of course the other way round... the doctor cant refuse to help the patient (hyppocratic oath).

The doctor could refuse to help the patient, but there would be consequences. Refusing to help the patient is like acting (it's breaking his oath, which is his expected responsibility, and failing to do his job).

While medically, the dogma is to help, that's different from moral consideration. Morally, the doctor must decide if the consequences of punishment are worth killing this mass murderer. Maybe the doctor, being punished, will be unable to save a hundred people in the course of his job, and the murderer would "only" kill 99.

Im not asking you to be omniscient. Im asking you how you can justify your claims/actions without being omniscient.

That's what I'm explaining. We use the best evidence we have. That's the justification. We do our best as human beings.
Just because we can't be perfect isn't an argument to not try our best.

On average, if people do their best they'll usually at least do better than not trying.

And not all decisions are even so complicated as the trolley problem: There are more black and white issues, like animal agriculture: obviously it's harmful to animals, human health, the environment. There's no reason to carry on with such irrational and destructive habits. And you don't need to push anybody off a bridge to stop supporting it.

You answered that in the trolley problem and I disagree. I dont think we will ever reach an agreement, since our answers to this basic problem are so different.

Why is your answer inaction? Is it based on fear of punishment?

I can say I also would not push the man, or pull the lever: I don't want to be held liable. There's a lot more good I can do if I'm not in jail for killing some guy to maybe save ten people.

[AmyLouiseAllan97]

What's the difference between killing an ant vs. killing a cow? Do you guys avoid killing insects? What about microorganisms?

I would like to explain it very simply, yet to the point. Killing is wrong. We know it is wrong. You can try and justify killing, by giving it excuses but at the end of the day - wrong is wrong. If an ant were to pass by you, and you squish it - However mediocre it may seem - you could have let the ant pass by and no harm would come to you or the ant.

What I am trying to say is that we know nothing - the ant could have a purpose. Why not? It is clearly living. We are not knowledgeable enough to declare whether the antibiotics has a purpose or not. So by letting the ant pass by we avoid destroying something that doesn't need to be destroyed.

I hope this helped - and just to clarify
You = Any person
Ant = Any insect.

[stupidmeateater]

Plants don't have the necessary biology to process information with true intelligence and true learning (no brain, no nerve clusters, etc.). They can only be chemically sensitized in a systemic way, and act based on reflex modulated by that sensitization.
This results in incredibly elaborate behaviors that look "intelligent" to the layman, but are comparable to a well designed machine.

We would need to discover something analogous to a brain structure in terms of speed and efficacy of information processing for plants to possibly be sentient.

Im confused by your definition of sentience. so I looked it up, since i made a translation error with spiders before.
So heres a quote from wiki on sentience and i would like you to tell me wether you agree or disagree:
"In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[2] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett, who also argues that animals are not sentient) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
according to this plants dont need intelligence or the ability to learn in order to have sentience. I dont see the need for them to process information in a certain speed or efficiency.
And dont get me wrong... Im not saying, that plants have sentience, I just dont understand, how you can be certain, that there isnt a plant in the universe, which could have sentience.

I do understand, that the "doctor" problem is a serious issue in medicine, but its not a moral issue! The doctor doesnt decide wether to treat the patient or not, based on ethics, but on probability (in your example).

Why is your answer inaction? Is it based on fear of punishment?

To me punishment isnt the problem. I am morally not allowed to act, without being omniscent (only applies to the trolley problem!).
You stated, that you can act, after educating yourself etc. and then execute the best moral choice (which in my opinion is always inaction, as long as youre not omniscient ... do you see the problem?)
I wrote that this problem is "solved" as far as the law is considered, to show, that Im not the only person, who thinks that way. There have been ethic commisions talking about this problem, there have been trails etc.. and the consensus is, that youre not allowed to act. It is the general consensus of the society Im living in... you disagree. I didnt know that and I was therefore not able to understand what youre saying (or what veganatheist was saying). Now that I know that we disagree on this basic understanding of morality, i do understand your points, but I disagree with all of them, which are based on that premise.

And finally:

And not all decisions are even so complicated as the trolley problem: There are more black and white issues, like animal agriculture: obviously it's harmful to animals, human health, the environment. There's no reason to carry on with such irrational and destructive habits. And you don't need to push anybody off a bridge to stop supporting it.

Animal agriculture... so thats the question ive asked over and over again. All animal agriculture is equally bad? If I keep a sheep and take its wool, its equally bad than slaughtering a cow? i really dont see the sheep suffering. I dont see that bees are suffering. I dont see why you can have useless pets, but as soon as they are useful, its exploiting the animal. Why is a cat ok, but bees arent? And who draws the line and where? Do I have to get rid of the cat, when it catches a mouse (being useful)? How do I prevent a dog from protecting my house? Keeping a cat to comfort my feelings isnt exploiting the cat? And forcing carnivores to eat vegan isnt animal abuse? Seriously? (again exaggerations)

[Allison-vega]

stupidmeateater,

I don't claim to be an expert on bees and I appreciate you opening my eyes.

[stupidmeateater]

stupidmeateater,

I don't claim to be an expert on bees and I appreciate you opening my eyes.

I didnt want to attack or discredit you, but I would really love to know, who claims, that queens get their wings ripped off or that varoa isnt a problem at all... and i would like to know why they claim sth like that. Is it to shock vegans?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

For lack of direct evidence about lady bugs specifically, how do we make educated guesses about their level of sentience?

Comparing the relative sizes of the aphid and ladybug could be a relatively accurate way to compare their sentience. A greater body size indicates greater sentience in general. Based on these parameters, it would be reasonable to assume a ladybug is more sentient than an aphid.

Alternatively, if we had access to the brains of these insects (assuming they have brains), we could compare the brain to body ratios to determine relative sentience. Organisms with greater brain sizes and lesser body sizes would be favored over organisms with lesser brain sizes and less body sizes, organisms with greater brain sizes and greater body sizes, and organisms with lesser brain sizes and great body sizes. This system would overcome the faults of the previous system which would define blue whales as more sentient than humans, a clearly untrue statement. I have to do more research to determine whether the aphid or ladybug is more sentient based on these parameters. I'll get back to you on the answer as soon as I can.

And why is an educated guess morally meaningful?

In absence of direct evidence, an educated guess is morally meaningful because it's the only practical way to accurately determine what is and isn't moral using reasoning. Otherwise we'd have to determine right and wrong using emotional whims (which is inaccurate) or do a study of each question (which is impractical, and likely impossible).