Sentientism discussion
Introducing the Sentientism Book Group - Introducing Ourselves
date
newest »
newest »
I found out about sentientism on twitter which directed me to the FB group, and that led me here. Even though I've been a vegan and atheist for many years, I haven't read much on any of the related topics and thought it would be interesting and helpful to see what comes up.
Mod
I sailed across the Pacific as a young woman and came face to face with marine beings (I tried to avoid the word animals) who convinced me of their sentience. My sentientism has been a part of my life forever and only today did I discover there is a name for it. I felt sentience in so many non-human beings I have known.
I heard a discussion about whether dolphins should be granted the legal status of non-human people and it triggered me to create this cartoon, where, as is a theme of my life, I view the argument from the non-human point of view:
https://bit.ly/2Tq8XZp
Mod
Thank-you for your friendly welcome. I am already enjoying the sentientism book list.
Discovering terrific discussions on the sentientism facebook page also.
Mod
I think my sentientism goes perhaps one step further than most in that I do not discount the possibility of some non-human beings, being more sentient than human beings. I say sentient rather than intelligent as I think sentience is a broader concept than intelligence and possibly includes other qualities besides intelligence, such as compassion and cultural capabilities.
Another point I'd like to make, and this time it IS around books and literature. My favourite poem, S T Coleridge's "Ancient Mariner" is an interesting study in speciesism that was way ahead of its time.The mariner was punished for needlessly killing an albatross but his curse was broken at the moment when he suddenly saw the beauty in the "slimy" creatures of the sea that he had formerly despised. These creatures were, to human eyes of the time, far "lowlier" than the majestic albatross but in the eyes of the spirits of the sea they were just as important. When the mariner suddenly felt a "spring of love" gush from his heart for them, the spirits rewarded the mariner by letting the curse break and so that was the moment when the whole story turned and . . .
"From my neck so free, the albatross fell off and sank like lead into the sea."
I know this poem off by heart. I memorised it during long lonely tricks on the helm at night, when I was young and sailing in the Pacific on the little wooden boat that was our only home back then.
*raises hand*Hi, Tuli... So, according to your thesis, compassion and whatnot are of a higher order in terms of moral consideration?
If that's the case, would it mean that persons (notice I don't use "human beings") are (or "might be") of lesser moral consideration than other animals/beings?
I think compassion is more important in assessing morality, than intelligence but both working together would be ideal. An intelligent person or species might be very cruel and we humans certainly are both intelligent and cruel. We can be compassionate too but we manage to still be cruel despite that.
Morality is very hard to judge, especially in another species because before you could judge you'd need to know so much about the workings of the mind of the one being judged.
You'd have to always know their deepest true intentions were. In fact morality is something I rarely consider, except in myself, because it is so hard to judge.
An example of why I dislike considering morality is because of the way it gets twisted. For example the old religions would burn witches at the stake and expect others to believe it was for the witch's own good because it would save her soul. I despise them for that. I despise the type of "morality" that is really no more than selfish rationalisation of evil. It continues today with meat-eaters who say "Oh fish don't feel pain" or "animals are bred to be eaten" or any other kind of rationalisation that allows them to feel okay about the immense cruelty of the fishing and farming industries.
Interesting.Tui wrote: "you'd need to know so much about the workings of the mind of the one being judged..."
Yeah, tots. That's the reason why I'm skeptical that animals are moral agents since they don't have (high) metacognition. (Actually, not really skeptical... I don't think they have it. Not even the great apes nor dolphins. And without it they can't make moral judgements, because they cannot ponder about their own behaviour in 'higher' way. We might be (read: are) bound to give them moral consideration, but they are not obliged to give it in return, since, well... they can't.)
With regards to the witches and so on, tots. However, I think that's mostly an issue with moral epistemology. (That is, these people lack/lacked the knowledge to make valid moral statements and rules.)
I was using morality was a synonym of ethics (meaning: ethics => moral philosophy).
By your text, it seems to me that in 'morality' you include the culture and customs (mistaken or not) of a particular group. I'm guessing that by 'ethics' you wouldn't include this intersubjective component of culture (and customs).
Is my appreciation accurate?
But how do we humans know that as you say, "they don't have (high) metacognition." We have no idea of what goes on in their brains. And when we say they can't make moral judgements we are only guessing. I believe we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume higher rather than our usual human way of assuming lower than might be.
That would be the ethical way for us to behave towards them. If we did that we would grant ownership of the seas, for example to the beings of the sea and our courts would send fishermen to prison for stealing food from someone else's property. Then most of the rest of the world would be guilty of receiving the stolen goods when they shop at the fish shop. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite serious about this.
Oh, the intricacies and nooks of metaethics and philosophy of mind (and language). I’ll try be as clear as possible. lolAs a preamble I think we both are in the same page with regards to neuroscience: it has risen exponentially, but there’s a lot to be learn on how the brain works.
Anyways, with regards to the epistemology of minds, neither one of us can know for sure about anything that is outside our own minds. Neither you have privileged access to my mind, nor I have to yours. So, who knows? *raises eyebrows* Maybe you’re a product of my imagination. (See: Descartes’ evil genius/devil and Harman’s brain in a vat gedankenexperiments.)
That’s kind of the point of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am (exist)” assertion. My thoughts are proof of my own existence and at least of that I can know for sure (that is, 100% certainty). (There are other absolute truths, of course, but that’s beyond the scope of this conversation.) Things outside my mind I can be quite sure of… like 99,99999999999999% sure, but never 100% sure.
However, we are reasonable and rational to accept metaphysical claims such “there are other minds such as my own” or “the objective reality exists”, even though we cannot be 100% certain of this. And we can be rationally certain (but NOT 100% certain) that these two metaphysical claims are true because they (seem to) repeat themselves over time. (But, again… who knows? Maybe that too is a product of my/our imagination/s.)
So I rationally accept “there are other minds such as my own”… but I’m also rational and reasonable in accepting “some minds are different as my own”, because their owners behave in a different enough way (emphasis in “enough”) than I would in certain environments and given certain stimuli.
Why animals can’t make moral judgements? Because they don’t have high metacognition which is the ability to think about thoughts… including moral thoughts. And the reason why they can’t is because they don’t have language. I mean proper language… not just “communication”. (I’ll could hand you that certain species have proto-language and proto-morality.)
My nephew Charles when I say “Charlie” out loud, by my expression, can tell when I’m addressing him v. other Charlies in the world. My dog Charlotte (who I used to call “Charlie” as well) could not differentiate himself from other “Charlies”, regardless of my expression and other cues, whenever I called out loud the word. I could go on and on with the implications of certain experiments that include features such as recognising oneself in the mirror, differentiating agency from nonagency (who knows? Maybe plants have cognition, but they pretend to ignore me when I talk to them?) and so on. But I think we can agree that our different senses (and their different development) allows us to differently understand the world. (See: Nagel’s What Is It Like to Be a Bat?)
So there are certain characteristics that my nephew Charles (who’s four and gorgeous, BTW) has, but my dog Charlotte didn’t (RIP… :’( ). And certain characteristics I have, that none of them have. And I know that by the cues in each of our behaviours.
Some characteristics are trivial for understanding morality (IDK… like having four fingers instead of five), but some are relevant for understanding morality. I’m making a case that high metacognition is a relevant and necessary characteristic for morality.
When a lion kills a zebra, he’s killing it… but he’s not murdering it. When a person kills knowlingly another person, he’s committing murder. (In moral linguistics, certain words have their meaning and a value of good/wrong added to them. “Killing” is not a perfect synonym of “murder”… Therefore, murder has that ‘moral wrongness’ included in the term, while killing remains neutral.)
Lions cannot think about thoughts the way we do. The lion can’t even know he has misbehaved. ‘Wrongness’ doesn’t even enter in the lion’s world. The person who murders another person should feel bad (regardless if he actually does) because he can understand his behaviour in a way he can modify it and he can also understand that the other people have interests (such as “I want to live”) that matter and should be respected.
Some animals (like ravens, great apes, small children, humans with certain mental disabilities, dolphins, lions and so on) seem to have low metacognition. They have sort of like intuitions that something is off and that they need to ‘correct’ it. But I definitely don’t think they can ponder about moral reality and their moral behaviour the way you and I can. And I have to say, though, in a Sci-Fi hypothetical scenario, since I’m a transhumanist, I think other beings, such as aliens (IDK, say… Superman and other kryptonians), provided that they have high metacognition and sentience –or their equivalents- would be moral agents and would have moral consideration as well.
I also agree that animals (and children and people with disabilities –mental or not-) are complete in their own right. People with four fingers in their right hand have no reason to envy me just because I have five fingers. (And I don’t envy people with six fingers.) Bats and lions shouldn’t envy me either. (Can they even?) Each of us is complete in their own right. And, of course, because I can think about moral thoughts and behaviour in a way than other animals can’t, I am obliged to act in a different way than they are. That is, I believe people shouldn’t mistreat animals (e.g. it’s not OK to consume them or to wear them), even when animals may attack us. (Here I must disagree as well that taking from the sea equates to “stealing” because fish don’t “own” things in the sea; though I do agree that killing fish is wrong.)
I apologise for the length and if I’m sounding condescending, but I believe (by your texts) you have some gaps related to (moral) ontology and epistemology. (Who doesn’t, though? That part of philosophy is so effing dense.) The reason I say this is because you seem to assume there’s such a thing as “ethical acts (or whatever)” and “non-ethical acts”; but while you don’t postulate a sound moral ontology (i.e. objective existence of moral goodness distinct from my own interests and opinions), you cannot separate your ethical system from the one of the people who thought murdering witches is moral. (I’m using the terms interchangeably.)
Why are they wrong and you’re right? Why sentience grants moral consideration to animals but “not being a witch” doesn’t? (See Frege-Geach problem.)
But I’m speculating… XD Maybe you’re a sage in metaethics and you’re just trolling me.
I actually wanted on the to-read list of the group Joelle Proust's The Philosophy of Metacognition: Mental Agency and Self-Awareness because that book's on the denser side (philosophy of mind)... so it'd be cool to discuss it together or at least to read it in an orderly fashion. (Writing my impressions and later on reading them, regardless of people commenting, has been excellent for revising my own views. *winks on high metacognition reference* ) But I haven't finished yet The Meat Racket.
So at the moment I'm not going to start with a new book.
:(
Mod
Among other things, I think the crux of sentientism is that humans practice compassion to other sentient beings. Humans, because they have technology, mechanisms, etc. to control the environment of all animals. And humans (not all, but certainly the powerful, et al) systematically either cause or inflict extensive suffering upon other sentient beings (and humans), inadvertently, deliberately, etc. Sentient beings suffer, and I think sentientism is the awareness that all animals are sentient, and do suffer.
I don’t think that having morality or the ability to be moral is a prerequisite for being a sentient being, but one would hope humans show some "morality" towards all animals after being aware of sentientism in others.
I think most animals I’ve met and known have proven to be as compassionate, also have shown as much metacognition say than many humans are able to exhibit self awareness or compassion towards others.
Metaphysics aside, I don’t think it’s necessary to prove reality or truth 100% to know that we have a shared reality with beings that suffer, and we humans can alter and diminish that suffering in our shared reality with animals. Morality is just a construct among humans throughout societies, but not even all groups share the same morals — What kind of morals would we impose on any animals to adopt, when most of our human societies generally mass kill those animals for consumption or other selfish purposes? It's a rhetorical question, of course. Tui, there was one thing you said that resonated, and I think fits in here: "...rationalisation that allows them to feel okay about the immense cruelty of the fishing and farming industries..."
There are many reasons why we are led to reading and talking about sentientism, or even why and how we become aware that we are sentientists — and there's a word for what we've thought to be true. Great to have this discussion.
Hi!Yeah, tots. WRT the whole exploitation of the animal kingdom, I'm still in an 'agnostic' position with certain things.
While I agree we shouldn't consume animals, but I don't believe it's immnoral/unethical to have animals as company (provided they are welltreated). (I definitely think it's safe to assume that animals have certain moral rights, but I think it's clear that I'm a welfarist not an abolitionist.)
However, I don't think farm animals (on average) can be thought the same way as company animals, precisely because 'owning' them a priori assumes more invasive uses of them (whether for milk, wool, transport and so on). For farm animals the line sparating 'use' and 'abuse' is a lot thinner and quite a lot more worrisome.
I'm a little puzzled WTR to the compassion appeal you're making, Gurlintheworld.
One question, is compassion necessary for morality?? (Necessary as in "it needs to be in every act we may consider moral".) For whatever reason (read: my own prejudices... XD lol ), I was thinking people here were some type of utilitarians (i.e. more wellbeing/eudaimonia, good; more suffering, bad).
But, you're position on morality seems to rely on... IDK... maybe deontology? As in "we need good intentions (as in compassion) for our acts to be good".
Also this "morality is just a construct among humans throughout societies, but not even all groups share the same morals" sounds troublesome. I mean, if there's no objective good (moral ontology), then whatever rules we make... are... well, intersubjective. Even the sentiocentrist ones or the compassionate ones.
(I agree that sentience -as a function- and sentient animals exist. However, where the subjectiveness or arbitrariness of the thing lays would be in choosing sentience over other characteristics that are equally objective.)
BTW, are you guys moral relativists?
Mod
"...is compassion necessary for morality? In general, no. I’ll start and follow me to see what I tend to believe. I don’t ascribe morality alone to define sentientism. I think animals deserve rights by virtue of the fact that they are sentient, and humans should protect and prevent other beings from suffering. I don’t think that morality is a definitive term; its definition can vary from person to person. I do think that compassion is a trait seen among many species, including humans. I don’t think it makes a person completely moral if and when they are compassionate, but compassion, as it is a characteristic that demonstrates recognition of another’s condition of living, and potential to suffer, is a great part of sentientism, to me. And yes, it could be deemed as moral. Humans have to extend, create laws that protect animals and animal rights. I guess I am an abolitionist, but I’m sure there are exceptions, as there is/are with many situations. I’m not so sure if I rely on deontology for me to consider something to be moral—intentions don’t really always amount to the same thing across persons and across situations. I just think that animals have rights that deserve protection, even when humans’ intentions don’t coincide with animal rights. (I generally agree with Kant, though). I’ll conclude with: if there is exploitation, or suffering, etc.—then it’s immoral. And if we protect animal rights it’s moral.
You know it’s interesting what you say about some exceptions to keeping animals as company—and BTW, I assume you mean, owning animals for production or to work for you. I don’t have a fixed stance on that, and I’m thinking of keeping sheep for their wool, as an example. At the moment, I’d say, yes if the sheep are cared for and are not suffering, it doesn’t sound like anti-sentientist. Some people would disagree, though, and they don’t think that raising sheep for wool is in line with veganism.
To elaborate on what I started to say about morality—actually, your comment on what I said makes my point. So, I agree with what you say here: “if there's no objective good (moral ontology), then whatever rules we make... are... well, intersubjective.” It’s also kind of in line with what I stated about sharing a common reality, metaphysics, etc., as well. My point is that humans do not make rules or laws that are consistent, or ethical, etc. and often laws are not beneficial or protective of all—especially WRT animals.
In general, I don’t believe I’m a relativist—but I don’t like to be “absolute” on some things. Thanks for engaging me and this group in some interesting discussion. -kat :)
Maloloa, thank-you for your incredibly thoughtful response. I have read every word though parts of it are almost beyond me. I'm a simple soul. I don't even know what a "moral relative" is. I simply go by the old old old rule which probably was first spoken long before they say the Christian bible was created. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I include all animals in that philosophy. I like it because of its simplicity. I am not a Christian or any kind of religious person.
I take you up on one important point. That is where you say "And the reason why they can’t is because they don’t have language. I mean proper language”.
I ask "What is proper language? And how would we humans know who has the best form of communication, whether it be simple language or something far more effective than language?"
I can only reiterate that we don't know what goes on in the brains of those whose brains are different from our own and should give them the benefit of the doubt.
For example, there are parts/zones/areas/organs of the brain which dolphins have but humans don't. Scientists admit to mystification about what their function might be. What say those zones or organs have evolved to provide easy telepathy? Telepathy being thought language. Thought language might have the capacity far greater sophistication than our own clumsy language of words, since it can not only transmit ideas, but perhaps pictures, music, and who knows what else?
Until we actually know what those zones can achieve for the dolphin, ought we not give them the benefit of the doubt about whether they might actually have more efficient brains than our own? This is something I've explored all my life in my own imaginative work.
Imagine a rat trying to communicate with a human in rat language. If we assume the rat is our intellectual inferior, why would humans bother to try to talk back to it in rat language? Parallel to that, imagine a human trying to teach our words to a dolphin (and yes humans actually do this). Why would a dolphin bother to learn so inferior a method of communication as these ridiculous words, when it has wondrous and much more effective methods at its disposal? And this method overcomes the entire problem of different languages because there are no words to translate.
"Communication" might exist at any level. Here, just mainly for fun, I arrange a few example in order from simplest to most complex as follows:
1. cat communicates love by caressing
2. dog asks for food by barking near its bowl
3. man talks to man about how to grow a potato
4. man talks to man at a highly abstract level
5. dolphin speaks via telepathy to its nearby friend
6. dolphin speaks to an alien on the other side of the galaxy and alien responds
7. whale speaks to his long deceased ancestor (whose memory he shares) by somehow overcoming the obstacle of time. And the ancestor responds.
8. A whale or any other being who, like the whale, has PLM (Past Life Memory) chats with itself, or with someone else, in a previous or future life in some distant corner of the universe, thus overcoming time, space, life itself.
My imagination starts to run out of ideas at about this point but that is because I am only a limited human being trying to imagine what might go on in the brains of those living beings who I suspect of being more advanced than myself.
However, I shouldn't beat myself up too much about it because after all (like all of us) I'm only newly evolved. Give us a few million more years of evolution and we might begin to catch up to the cetaceans who ruled Earth's oceans so much wisely for millions of years before humans came along and ruined everything.
To bring it back to books, I read an amazing book on the topic of animal telepathy, written by a scientist who used correct scientific methods to explore his hypotheses. "Dogs who know when their owners are coming home." It's here on Amazon, though I could not find it on GR.
https://amzn.to/2SSwTUK
One other thing, I notice we are having this discussion on the introductions page. Perhaps we ought to take ourselves elsewhere.
Mod
How you define sentientism - Everyone is welcome! -kat :)
Great to have you with us, James! You might also enjoy the Sentientism podcast, YouTube channel and FaceBook group (all welcome). All the links are at https://sentientism.info/
Hello, I am MinaraI have had the inclination to hold a worldview in which all sentient beings should be considered and cared for since I was a little child. Growing up, I have tried to summarize it for myself as a life motto that goes "the only point is to flourish and to aid in the flourishing of others", always emphasizing that this includes not only humans, but everyone who can flourish.
When I recently discovered sentientism, I was amazed to have found a name for it and fellow people who share this view . Also when it comes to epistemology, I feel understood concerning the probabilistic naturalistic approach Sentientism seems to suggest.
I love philosophy and reading and I am highly interested in the worldview of Sentientism, so I thought I'd just join this community and see what there is to discover. :)
It's wonderful to have you here with us, Minara - and in some of our other groups too!
It's good to see that there are a few more members trickling into the group, and I am looking forward to discussions with you all about the issues, contextual problems and solutions around Sentientism. For me, personally, I wish to see the end of living beings' suffering, not just that of humans, but of all species. I'm so happy to have found Sentientism on twitter, and wanted to learn more about the activism and philosophy related to it. In short, to be a part of the movement.
How about you - how did you find this space? What would you like to see happen here?