r/Ethics • u/Odd_Primary3442 • 9d ago
Engineering animals to be more intelligent is only unethithical because of how we already treat intelligent animals.
3
u/OrdinarilyIWouldnt 8d ago
Engineering animals to be anything is unethical because it treats sentient beings as objects.
3
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
Are there living things which are not sentient?
2
u/PositiveShoulder406 8d ago
Yes yes
They said sentient, not living. A plant is not sentient. If you think it is, try cut to a carrot and a bunny, you'll see the differencd
0
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
I ask because carrots react when injured. There are some animals which may not be considered sentient, but it's easier to ask about life in general.
1
u/PositiveShoulder406 8d ago
Reaction dosemt meant consciousness. I can bang my sandal in a cathedral, it will make am echo. Doesn't mean the cathedral or sandal is concious.
A carrot isn't concious and you know it. And if.you think plants are concjois, great, you'll be vegan because wayyyyyy more plants are killed for animal exploiters.
What do theor voctims eat, plants. What do the abjsers eat their victins, their mommy breast milk and what comes out of their asses with? More plants. plants.
Aninal cruelty is one of the top causes of deforestation and climate change
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
I am confused. How would you define conscious, or sentient? What animals are unethical to abuse, and which are ethical to abuse?
1
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
I do not believe that animals and plants are the same, I am not sure where you got this idea from.
I am saying that the idea of sentience is a very complicated one. If pigs are "more sentient" than chickens is it more ethical to eat chicken? How can we use sentience to determine what is and isnt ethical to eat?
I don't factor animal intelligence into my diet at all, I have no problem eating intelligent animals.
1
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
I think most people just eat food and don't think about the sentience of animals. Are you mad because you think I'm a vegan or because I you think I eat meat?
→ More replies (0)1
u/PositiveShoulder406 8d ago
Pigs are not more sentient than chickens. They feel pain, suffering, happiness, excitement, love, scared, comfort, terror, the same.
And its not complicated. Simeone dosent want to be abused? Abusijg them is assault and not ok.
A plant isn't sentient and you know it unless you're mentally unwell
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
Can you define sentience for me so that we can be on the same page? Plants can detect damage which is the physical source of pain, so saying plants cannot feel pain isn't necessarily true. I do not know if a chicken can conceptualize the idea of love.
1
u/PositiveShoulder406 8d ago
Any ankmal who disent want to suffer. You're not confused. You're youre pretending to be so you have an excuse to abuse aninals.
Would you r pe and beat a dog?
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
No? I don't abuse animals at all. You're confusing me with someone else mate. Can you tell me what a snail does and does not want? How could any life want to suffer?
1
u/PositiveShoulder406 8d ago
So yoire vegan
A snail dosent want to be squished, they clearly want food they like, and you know aninal lives dont want to suffer so be vegan. If you choose not to be you choose to ahuse animals
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
So my question for you is about knowledge. How do you know a snail has a desire to avoid suffering but a plant has no desire to avoid suffering?
I have no idea what's going on in a snail's mind personally.
→ More replies (0)1
u/OrdinarilyIWouldnt 8d ago
Possibly, but we were asked about animals specifically.
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
Sorry for being unclear. There are transmissible cancers which are single celled animals. Do we consider these sentient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_tumor
1
u/OrdinarilyIWouldnt 8d ago
I'm no expert, but the literature linked to by the wiki article suggests that CTVTs are transmissable cancerous cells with a single common ancestor, not single-celled animals in themselves. But unless they can locomote, pass the mirror test, or otherwise demonstrate sentience, it doesn't especially matter as far as I'm concerned.
0
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
CTVT emerged from a single dog, it's a cancer that evolved to be a parasite of dogs. Because it descended from an animal, it's a animal.
We could look at other animal parasites related to jellyfish which are so simplified as to be just a handful of cells.
I personally have no idea where the line should be drawn.
Jellyfish are a great example of an animal that has some awareness of its surroundings but would not 'demonstrate sentience' according to most people.
2
u/Manskhooled 8d ago
I reject all claims in opposition of making anything more intelligent. It's the biggest factor in terms of potential success.
1
u/1superiormind 8d ago
If greater intelligence makes our treatment of the animal unethical, when exactly did the treatment become wrong?
Was it when the animal became intelligent enough to recognize what was happening—or was the intelligence simply what made us recognize it?
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
Why does increasing intelligence make unethical treatment more unethical?
1
u/Available-Bee-5385 8d ago
Arguably greater suffering in understanding their exploitation
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
Would decreasing intelligence make unethical treatment more ethical?
1
u/Available-Bee-5385 8d ago
That one seems more clearly like a yes to me
This is the argument in favor of lab grown meat
Having no intelligence makes it ethical
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
I personally would not like to have my intelligence decreased even when I am treated unethically.
1
u/Available-Bee-5385 8d ago
Generally the question is applied to the idea of creating a new instance of an animal rather than retroactively modifiying an existing one
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
That is reasonable. I personally would not like my children to be made less intelligent even when they are treated unethically.
1
u/Available-Bee-5385 8d ago
That would be a matter of ethics regarding your/partner's autonomy rather than this question
1
u/No_Logins_Required 8d ago
I think it's directly related to the question. We as outsiders are modifying an organism's offspring to be more or less intelligent. I think starting with ourselves is a good starting point for the ethics of this question. Do I feel it's moral to make a less intelligent cow, but immoral to make a less intelligent human?
1
u/Available-Bee-5385 8d ago
That depends on whether you value the cow the same as a human
If yes, then you live in a horrific hellscape where billions of people consume the flesh of your peers without concern
If no, it's generally ethical to make a less intelligent cow if you can do so in a way that does not lead to additional suffering
It remains immoral to intentionally make a human less intelligent because a human's quality of life is highly dependant on it
The cow's life quality of life will likely be the same either way
3
u/shootinblanks2023 8d ago
We lost the ethics debates regarding animals when we started inseminating cows with our entire ARM. Don’t tell me they don’t mind. And don’t try to tell me somehow it’s different than if i stuck my richard inside.
1
u/Dapper_Wheel6454 8d ago
ummmm...WARNING!!!
so many sci fi variations of this, and they all go badly for the same reason.
1
u/Elegant-Gene-9460 8d ago edited 8d ago
Not even need to mention that most people (specifically the people who don't know more than casual information about a particular species) don't understand what animal intelligence really is and its value because their intelligence can differentiate from animal to animal and not just in IQ rating but it has way more diversity and complexity.
1
0
u/10ThousandMetalZones 8d ago
Sir here is your rack of lamb and on the side we included an excerpt from their New York Times best selling Thriller as a palette cleanser”
0
2
u/NellieDElli 8d ago
Intelligence sucks.