Re: Belief and experience


"Lance" <lachenicht@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1124805041.311843.266400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> If a person believes that animals are not sentient and thus can't feel
> pain, presumably the consequences of torturing the animal can't include
> an increase in the total pain experienced in the universe. But here one
> can wonder whether any person can be justified in taking a chance on
> the basis of a speculative theory. Example: Someone believes that
> arsenic is not poisonous (although he knows that others claim it is
> poisonous), and happily feeds it to children at the local school as
> part of the free lunches he makes for them. Would he be justified by
> his personal belief that arsenic is nor poisonous?


'Justified' is a little ambiguous here. It might refer to a moral stance
or to an intellectual stance. In this instance, the man's belief that
arsenic isn't poisonous is not intellectually justified -- it doesn't
accord with the facts. Of course, it might be argued that the man's
behaviour in feeding the children arsenic is not morally justified, because
he should acquaint himself with the facts.


> If a person believes that animals can't experience pain, and then
> tortures them, presumably he can't be said to intend to inflict pain.
> But here my earlier point comes in. For whatever a person believes,
> when he actually gets down to torturing the animals, his own emotional
> responses to the animals distress must conflict with his prior belief.
> Most people would simply not be able to bear it, unless they had some
> prior reason that compelled them to do it. Even Bushmen who have killed
> a large animal sit by it side and ask forgiveness. So either our
> torturing person has a compelling reason such as needing food - and the
> story we started with suggested he did not - or the person doesn't
> respond emotionally to pain signals like the rest of us do. So even if
> we can't say he *intended* to inflict pain, not believing animals to
> experience pain, we can say he must be indifferent to or enjoy
> experiencing distress in other creatures. And that point seems to make
> him despicable to many people.


Cruelty to animals upsets me greatly, yet I think people and cultures may
vary considerably in how much sympathy they have for animals. If Descartes
sincerely believed that animals were automata, then the question of animal
suffering simply wouldn't arise for him. Today, many people believe that
animals can suffer, but they still feel it is morally justified to treat
animals as a means to an end -- for instance, as a source of food or as a
research tool.

Dave Smith


.

Quantcast